AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was convicted of breaking and entering and residential burglary after allegedly forcing open the door of an apartment with the intent to commit a robbery. The incident involved the apartment of Kimberly Mendoza. The Defendant's actions led to a trial where various offenses were considered based on the events that transpired during the alleged crime.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Lea County, Mark T. Sanchez, District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the district court improperly limited his defense by excluding a witness and limiting the cross-examination of another. Also contended that his convictions violate the right to be free from double jeopardy.
• Appellee (State): Defended the trial court's decisions regarding witness exclusion and cross-examination limitations. Conceded that the conduct underlying the offenses was unitary, thus implicating a double jeopardy concern.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court improperly limited the Defendant's defense by excluding a witness and limiting the cross-examination of another.
• Whether the Defendant's convictions violate the right to be free from double jeopardy.
• Whether the jury was improperly instructed on the elements of breaking and entering.

Disposition

• The court affirmed the decision regarding the exclusion of a witness and the limitation on cross-examination.
• The court reversed the Defendant's conviction for breaking and entering due to improper jury instruction and a resulting double jeopardy violation.

Reasons

• Per Linda M. Vanzi, J. (Jonathan B. Sutin, J., and Timothy L. Garcia, J., concurring):
  The court found that the late disclosure of a witness by the Defendant did not give the State reasonable opportunity for preparation, thus justifying the exclusion of the witness (paras 3-9). The limitation on cross-examination was deemed within the district court's discretion as it did not prevent the Defendant from impeaching the witness effectively (paras 10-12).
  Regarding the breaking and entering conviction, the court identified an error in the jury instruction that deviated from the uniform jury instruction without justification. This error was significant enough to reverse the conviction on its own merits, as it led to a double jeopardy violation by potentially convicting the Defendant of a crime (forcible entry) not recognized in New Mexico law and subsuming this non-existent crime within another offense for which the Defendant was also punished (paras 13-25).
  The court concluded that while the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding a witness or limiting cross-examination, the improper jury instruction on breaking and entering necessitated a reversal of that conviction (para 26).