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

• Martel Ration reported his truck stolen from his apartment. The next day, his sister saw the truck in a shopping center parking lot near the apartment. Albuquerque Police Department Officers found Defendant, Christopher Heh, sleeping barefoot inside the truck. Upon being asked to exit, Heh claimed ownership and later admitted to stealing the truck, a claim he subsequently denied. Inside the truck, officers found Heh's backpack and shoes, along with tools commonly used in vehicle thefts (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that criminal trespass should be considered a lesser included offense of possession of a stolen vehicle, suggesting that one could enter a vehicle without intent to possess or commit another offense. Contended that the jury should have been instructed on the definition of "possession" since sleeping in the truck alone does not imply control over it (paras 4, 11).
• Appellee (State of New Mexico): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether criminal trespass is a lesser included offense of possession of a stolen vehicle.
• Whether it was error not to instruct the jury on the definition of "possession" (paras 4, 10).

Disposition

• The Court affirmed the Defendant's conviction for possession of a stolen vehicle (para 1).

Reasons

• Per Henderson, J. (Bogardus and Duffy, JJ., concurring):
  The Court held that criminal trespass is not a lesser included offense of possession of a stolen vehicle, citing statutory interpretation and legislative intent. It noted that "lands" in the criminal trespass statute does not include vehicles and that the Legislature has not amended the statute to include vehicles or enacted a separate vehicular trespass statute despite having the opportunity to do so (paras 6-8).
  On the issue of failing to instruct the jury on the definition of "possession," the Court found no fundamental error. It reasoned that the circumstances of the Defendant's presence in the truck allowed the jury to properly infer control over it, thus not resulting in fundamental unfairness in the trial. The Court concluded that the omission of the jury instruction for the definition of "possession" did not amount to fundamental error (paras 10-15).