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 residential burglary after being tried three times.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by not instructing the jury on "theft" during the first trial, that the granting of a mistrial in the second trial was erroneous, and that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction for residential burglary.
• Appellee: Maintained that the trial court's actions and the evidence presented were sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in failing to instruct the jury on "theft" during the first trial.
• Whether the district court erred in granting a mistrial at the second trial.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for residential burglary.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction for residential burglary.

Reasons

• Per J. MILES HANISEE, with MICHAEL E. VIGIL and TIMOTHY L. GARCIA concurring:
  Regarding the first trial, the Court found no reversible error in the jury instructions as the remedy for failing to give an instruction is a new trial, which the Defendant received (para 2).
  In the second trial, the Court concluded there was no error in granting a mistrial since the Defendant did not object to it, and defense counsel found the ruling sensible (para 3).
  For the third trial, the Court determined there was substantial evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for residential burglary, noting that the jury is free to reject the Defendant’s version of the facts and that the appellate court must defer to the fact finder on matters of weight and credibility (para 4).