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

• Anthony Holt was detected by a homeowner while partially removing a window screen from a residential dwelling. Upon being seen, Holt fled the scene. He had placed his fingers behind the screen and inside the outer boundary of the home during the attempt. Holt was charged with breaking and entering under NMSA 1978, Section 30-14-8 (1981), which requires an "unauthorized entry" as an essential element of the offense (para 1).

Procedural History

• Court of Appeals: Affirmed Holt's conviction in a divided opinion (para 7).
• Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico: Affirmed Holt's conviction and clarified the analysis for determining what constitutes an "entry" under the breaking and entering statute (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Petitioner: Argued that his conduct did not constitute an "entry" for purposes of Section 30-14-8(A) because he only attempted to remove the window screen and did not enter the homeowner's residence (para 7).
• Plaintiff-Respondent: Contended that penetration of a window screen does constitute an "entry" under Section 30-14-8(A) as a window screen forms the outer barrier of a structure and provides protection against unauthorized intrusions (para 8).

Legal Issues

• Whether the defendant's act of placing his fingers behind a window screen and beyond the outer boundary of a home constitutes an "entry" under New Mexico’s breaking and entering statute, NMSA 1978, Section 30-14-8 (1981) (para 7).

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico affirmed Holt's conviction for breaking and entering (para 23).

Reasons

• Per NAKAMURA, Justice, with BARBARA J. VIGIL, Chief Justice, PETRA JIMENEZ MAES, Justice, EDWARD L. CHÁVEZ, Justice, and CHARLES W. DANIELS, Justice concurring: The Court determined that placing one's fingers behind a window screen affixed to a residential dwelling constitutes an intrusion into an enclosed, private, prohibited space and thus an "entry" under New Mexico’s breaking and entering statute. This decision was based on the interpretation of the statute's purpose, the ordinary meaning of "entry," and the precedent set by common law burglary and previous case law. The Court emphasized the importance of the privacy interest protected by the statute, which extends to all enclosed, private, prohibited spaces. The Court concluded that a window screen is considered a part of the dwelling's outer boundary, and any penetration, however slight, into the space it protects constitutes an entry. The evidence presented at trial, specifically the homeowner's testimony regarding Holt's actions, was deemed sufficient to support the conviction (paras 8-22).