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

• On August 15, 2018, the Defendant attempted to enter a home by reaching through a dog door but was thwarted by the homeowner. Subsequently, the Defendant was found by another individual in a different home, having entered through a bathroom window. The Defendant was convicted of breaking and entering, attempted breaking and entering, criminal trespass, and resisting an officer. The Defendant claimed to have been under the influence of methamphetamine and seeking refuge from perceived threats (paras 3-6).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the amendment of the criminal trespass charge during trial constituted a new charge in violation of procedural rules, that the jury instruction for criminal trespass did not accurately reflect the statutory elements, that the jury instructions for breaking and entering and attempted breaking and entering contained fundamental errors, that the State improperly influenced the jury by emphasizing the seriousness of the charges, and that there was insufficient evidence to support the breaking and entering conviction (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the amendment to the criminal trespass charge was merely a correction of a typographical error, not the addition of a new charge, and defended the sufficiency of the evidence and the accuracy of the jury instructions (paras 8-11, 13, 18-19, 22, 24, 32, 36).

Legal Issues

• Whether amending the criminal trespass charge during trial amounted to adding a new charge in violation of Rule 5-204(A).
• Whether the uniform jury instruction for criminal trespass accurately reflects the statutory elements.
• Whether the jury instructions for breaking and entering and attempted breaking and entering suffered from fundamental error.
• Whether the State improperly influenced the jury by discussing the seriousness of the charges.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction for breaking and entering (para 1).

Disposition

• The conviction for criminal trespass was reversed due to the amendment of the charge during trial constituting a new charge in violation of Rule 5-204(A).
• The court suggested modification of UJI 14-1402 to conform to the statutory language for criminal trespass.
• The court affirmed the remaining convictions, finding no error that required reversal (paras 2, 20, 41).

Reasons

• BACA, Judge: Agreed that the amendment to the criminal trespass charge constituted a new charge, violating Rule 5-204(A), and found the "should have known" language in UJI 14-1402 for criminal trespass to be erroneous. However, the judge was unpersuaded by the Defendant's other arguments, including the sufficiency of evidence for breaking and entering, and found no fundamental error in the jury instructions for breaking and entering and attempted breaking and entering. The court also dismissed the claim that the State improperly influenced the jury by emphasizing the seriousness of the charges (paras 8-20, 22-40).
  Concurrence: ZACHARY A. IVES, Judge and JANE B. YOHALEM, Judge concurred with the opinion and reasoning provided by Judge BACA (para 42).