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 entered the locked home of his former girlfriend without permission, drilled a small hole in the gas hose behind the kitchen stove, and then replaced the stove before leaving and re-locking the door. The State alleged that the Defendant committed aggravated burglary by entering the dwelling with the intent to commit a felony and arming himself with a deadly weapon (paras 3-4).
Procedural History
- District Court of Otero County: The Defendant was convicted of aggravated burglary and sentenced accordingly.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the jury instruction on aggravated burglary was fundamentally flawed because it failed to specify whether the drill or the natural gas was the deadly weapon and did not make clear that the determination of whether the object was a deadly weapon was a factual issue for the jury to decide (paras 5-6).
- Appellee (State): Contended that the jury instruction followed the uniform jury instruction (UJI 14-1632) and that the context of the case and arguments made during trial clarified that the drill was the object in question. The State also argued that the jury was properly instructed to determine whether the object was a deadly weapon (paras 7-8, 12).
Legal Issues
- Was the jury instruction on aggravated burglary fundamentally flawed for failing to specify whether the drill or the natural gas was the deadly weapon?
- Did the jury instruction fail to make clear that the determination of whether the object was a deadly weapon was a factual issue for the jury to decide?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant’s conviction and sentence (para 18).
Reasons
Per Wechsler J. (Sutin and Garcia JJ. concurring):
The Court found no fundamental error in the jury instruction. It held that the instruction complied with the uniform jury instruction (UJI 14-1632), which does not require the identification of the specific object used as a weapon. The Court distinguished this case from State v. Traeger, where the lack of specificity in the jury instruction created confusion. Here, the context of the case and the arguments made during trial clarified that the drill was the object in question (paras 7-9).
The Court also rejected the Defendant’s argument that the instruction failed to make clear that the determination of whether the object was a deadly weapon was a factual issue for the jury. The instruction explicitly required the jury to determine whether the Defendant armed himself with an object that, when used as a weapon, could cause death or serious injury. This was consistent with established law, which requires the jury to make such determinations when the object is not listed as a deadly weapon under the statute (paras 10-12).
The Court concluded that the jury instruction, when considered in the context of the entire trial, did not result in a miscarriage of justice or shock the conscience, and therefore, no fundamental error occurred (paras 13-15).