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 and the Victim had a prior relationship and lived together. After their breakup, they resumed seeing each other. One evening, following an argument at the Victim's residence, the police were called, and the Defendant was given a verbal trespass warning. Despite this, the Defendant returned to the Victim's home hours later, forcibly entered, and assaulted the Victim, causing significant injuries. The Defendant was charged with aggravated burglary, aggravated battery against a household member with great bodily harm, and criminal trespass (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that there was insufficient evidence for the aggravated burglary conviction, the jury instructions on crimes against household members were confusing, and the convictions for both aggravated burglary and criminal trespass violated the constitutional right to be free from double jeopardy (paras 5, 18, 23).
• Appellee (State): Conceded that the evidence presented at trial was not sufficient to convict the Defendant of aggravated burglary under the theory presented to the jury and requested the court to reverse the aggravated burglary conviction and remand the case for entry of judgment for breaking and entering as a lesser included offense (para 6).

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to convict the Defendant of aggravated burglary.
• Whether the district court committed fundamental error by giving the jury confusing instructions on crimes against household members.
• Whether the Defendant's convictions for both aggravated burglary and criminal trespass violate his constitutional right to be free from double jeopardy.

Disposition

• The court affirmed the Defendant's convictions for aggravated battery against a household member with great bodily harm and criminal trespass.
• The court reversed the Defendant's aggravated burglary conviction.
• The case was remanded to the district court for entry of judgment for breaking and entering and for resentencing on that offense (para 29).

Reasons

• VANZI, Chief Judge (FRENCH and GALLEGOS, Judges concurring):
  The court agreed with the State that the evidence was insufficient for an aggravated burglary conviction under the presented theory, leading to a reversal of that conviction and a remand for entry of judgment for breaking and entering as a lesser included offense (paras 5-17). The court found no fundamental error in the jury instructions regarding crimes against household members, as the errors did not impair the Defendant's defense or lead to a miscarriage of justice (paras 18-22). Lastly, the court concluded that the Defendant's double jeopardy rights were not violated by convictions for both breaking and entering and criminal trespass, as the conduct underlying each offense was not unitary (paras 23-28).