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 for criminal trespass under the Taos Municipal Code in effect at the time of the incident. The conviction was based on the Defendant entering or remaining upon the lands of another with malicious intent, knowing that consent to enter or remain was denied or withdrawn by the owner or occupant thereof (para 4).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Taos County, John M. Paternoster, District Judge: Convicted the Defendant for criminal trespass.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Contended that the district court applied an improper legal definition of malicious intent, made no findings about unlawfulness, and improperly shifted the burden onto the Defendant to prove that there was no legal justification or excuse for his unauthorized entry (para 2).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico, Town of Taos): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court applied the correct legal standard for maliciousness in the context of criminal trespass.
• Whether the district court made a finding as to the unlawfulness of the Defendant's entry.
• Whether the district court improperly shifted the burden of proof onto the Defendant to demonstrate a legal justification or excuse for his entry (paras 2-4).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment and sentence, convicting the Defendant for criminal trespass (para 5).

Reasons

• Per Timothy L. Garcia, J. (Michael D. Bustamante, J., and J. Miles Hanisee, J., concurring): The Court of Appeals issued a notice of proposed summary disposition, proposing to affirm the district court's decision. The Defendant's response to the notice did not persuade the Court that the district court applied an incorrect legal standard for maliciousness or that the Court's analysis was circular or shifted the burden to the Defendant. The Court relied on State v. Ruiz to affirm that the district court applied the correct legal standard for maliciousness and found sufficient evidence to support the conviction for criminal trespass. The Court held that the district court made a finding as to unlawfulness by convicting the Defendant for criminal trespass and rejecting his argument that he was acting out of concern for the safety of the children. The Court concluded that there was ample evidence to establish that the Defendant entered the property knowing that consent to do so was withdrawn, did so with malicious intent and no cause or excuse, thus supporting his conviction for criminal trespass (paras 2-5).