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 complainant had an intermittent relationship over three years, during which they shared childcare responsibilities but maintained separate residences. On the day of the incident, the Defendant, after becoming angry during an argument, kicked open the locked door of the complainant's apartment to retrieve his belongings, causing damage to the door. The complainant had refused him entry and called the police. The Defendant was charged with breaking and entering (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Lea County: The Defendant was convicted of breaking and entering.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the jury instructions were improper as they used the phrase "without permission" instead of "unauthorized entry," that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on a lesser-included offense of criminal damage to property, and that the court failed to instruct the jury on his defense theory that he had a tenancy interest in the apartment (paras 1, 5, 17-18).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the jury instructions were proper, the evidence did not support a lesser-included offense instruction, and the Defendant lacked any legal authority or tenancy interest to enter the apartment (paras 6-9, 17-18).

Legal Issues

• Was the jury instruction on "entry without permission" improper for failing to use the statutory term "unauthorized entry"?
• Did the trial court err in refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of criminal damage to property?
• Did the trial court err in refusing to instruct the jury on the Defendant's defense theory of having a tenancy interest in the apartment?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction for breaking and entering (para 19).

Reasons

Per Bustamante J. (Hartz CJ. and Pickard J. concurring):

• The Court held that the jury instruction using "entry without permission" was not improper, as it substantially captured the statutory meaning of "unauthorized entry." The Court found no issue with the instruction under the facts of the case, as the Defendant lacked legal authority to enter the apartment (paras 6-8, 16).
• The Court determined that the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of criminal damage to property. The evidence overwhelmingly supported that the Defendant's entry was unauthorized, and no reasonable view of the evidence suggested that criminal damage to property was the highest degree of crime committed (para 17).
• The Court rejected the Defendant's argument that he had a tenancy interest in the apartment. The evidence showed that the Defendant was a frequent guest but lacked any enforceable possessory interest or legal authority to enter the apartment over the complainant's objection. Thus, the trial court properly refused to instruct the jury on this defense theory (paras 9-10, 18).