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 involved in a shoplifting incident at a Costco store. A group, including the Defendant, entered Costco without any of them being a member; one person showed a membership card belonging to someone else to gain entry. Inside, items were placed into a purse by a group member, and upon attempting to exit after purchasing some items, they were detained for attempting to steal the items in the purse (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Stan Whitaker, District Judge.
• Certiorari Granted, August 1, 2014, No. 34,769. Certiorari Quashed, August 1, 2014, No. 34,769. Released for Publication August 26, 2014.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that entering a retail store with the intention to shoplift does not constitute the crime of burglary under the state's statute (para 1).
• Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether entry into a retail store by a non-member using a membership card that does not belong to them constitutes an "unauthorized entry" for purposes of the burglary statute (para 5).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals of New Mexico reversed the Defendant's conviction for commercial burglary (para 15).

Reasons

• The Court, per Cynthia A. Fry, J., with Michael E. Vigil, J., and M. Monica Zamora, J., concurring, held that the Defendant's entry into Costco did not constitute an unauthorized entry under the burglary statute. The Court reasoned that retail stores are presumed open to the public during business hours, and entry with intent to shoplift does not amount to burglary. The Court distinguished between revocation of permission to enter and general public access, finding Costco's membership policies insufficient to negate the presumption of public access. The Court referenced the Supreme Court's guidance to view burglary charges critically, emphasizing the statute's intent to protect against violations of privacy and security interests, which the Defendant's entry did not implicate. The Court concluded that enforcing Costco's membership policies through the burglary statute would be an absurd application, inconsistent with legislative intent and recent judicial restraint in expanding the scope of burglary (paras 4-14).