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

• On November 19, 2010, the Defendant, along with three other individuals, entered a Costco store without any of them being a member. One individual showed a membership card belonging to someone else to gain entry, which was not verified by the greeter. Inside, items were placed into a purse by one member of the group, with the Defendant purchasing bottled water and ice cream using the membership card. Upon attempting to leave, they were detained by a Costco loss-prevention employee (para 2).

Procedural History

• State v. Baca, 2014-NMCA____, ___ P.3d ___ (No. 32,553, May 14, 2014): The Court of Appeals reversed Mr. Baca’s conviction for commercial burglary (para 4).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant: Argued that her entry into Costco was not unauthorized, and therefore, her conduct did not constitute commercial burglary (para 5).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether entry into Costco by a non-member using a membership card that does not belong to that person constitutes an 'unauthorized entry' for purposes of the burglary statute (para 5).
• Whether the Defendant's conduct constituted conspiracy to commit commercial burglary given the determination of the burglary charge (para 6).

Disposition

• The convictions for commercial burglary and conspiracy to commit commercial burglary were reversed (para 7).

Reasons

• The Court, with Judge M. Monica Zamora authoring the opinion and Judges Cynthia A. Fry and Michael E. Vigil concurring, reversed the Defendant's convictions based on the reasoning that the entry into Costco did not constitute an unauthorized entry under the burglary statute. This conclusion was drawn from a precedent set in a related case (State v. Baca), which determined that Costco’s membership policies did not negate the presumption that retail stores are open to the public, thereby rendering the Defendant’s entry, while potentially impermissible by Costco's standards, not 'unauthorized' in the context of the burglary statute. Consequently, since the entry was not unauthorized, the act of conspiracy to commit commercial burglary was also negated, leading to the reversal of both convictions (paras 1, 3-7).