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

• In the early hours, Defendant Trevor Merhege, while being pursued by a police officer, ran through the front yard of a private residence enclosed by a three-foot-high wall and attempted to jump over an adjoining fence, getting entangled in the process. He was convicted of criminal trespass, challenged by the requirement to prove his knowledge of not having consent to enter the property due to the property not being posted with "no trespassing" signs (paras 1-5).

Procedural History

• Court of Appeals, 2016-NMCA-059, 376 P.3d 867: Reversed Merhege's conviction, holding insufficient evidence to support the knowledge requirement for criminal trespass because the property was not posted, and there were no explicit warnings not to enter (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Petitioner (State of New Mexico): Argued that the wall surrounding the property, the purpose of Merhege's entry, and the time of his entry provided sufficient circumstantial evidence for the jury to find that Merhege knew he did not have consent to enter the property (para 1).
• Defendant-Respondent (Trevor Merhege): Contended there was insufficient evidence to support the knowledge requirement for criminal trespass, as the property was not posted with a "no trespassing" sign, and there were no explicit warnings not to enter (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing Merhege's conviction for criminal trespass based on the presumption that unposted property grants permission to the public to enter (para 6).
• Whether sufficient circumstantial evidence existed for the jury to find that Merhege knew he did not have consent to enter the property (para 10).

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and reinstated Merhege's conviction for criminal trespass (para 15).

Reasons

• Per CHÁVEZ, Justice, with CHARLES W. DANIELS, Chief Justice, PETRA JIMENEZ MAES, Justice, BARBARA J. VIGIL, Justice, and JUDITH K. NAKAMURA, Justice concurring: The Supreme Court found that the wall surrounding the property, the purpose and time of Merhege's entry provided sufficient circumstantial evidence for the jury to conclude that Merhege knew he did not have consent to enter. It rejected the Court of Appeals' presumption that the general public is granted permission to enter unposted lands, clarifying that permission depends on the circumstances of entry. The Court emphasized that New Mexico law does not limit the notice function of fencing to those fences designed to exclude intruders, allowing jurors to draw their own conclusions based on community norms. The Court also considered the time of night and Merhege's purpose for entering the property as factors supporting the jury's decision (paras 7-14).