State v. Ancira
Background
- On Aug. 15, 2018 Ancira was tried and convicted by a jury of: breaking and entering (into Muniz’s home), attempted breaking and entering (reaching through Noblitt’s dog door), criminal trespass (unposted) (entry into Duran’s backyard), and resisting/evading an officer (running from police).
- Facts: Ancira reached through a dog door at Noblitt’s house; Noblitt intervened and Ancira ran over a 5-foot brick wall into neighbor Duran’s yard; Ancira was later found unconscious in Muniz’s bathroom after the bathroom window and screen appeared forced and the bathroom was ransacked.
- The State amended the trespass count during trial to change the address from 1000 Dewey to 1002 Dewey (after close of evidence), adding a new victim/witness for that trespass count.
- Ancira appealed, raising: (a) the midtrial amendment violated Rule 5-204(A); (b) UJI 14-1402’s mens rea wording (“knew or should have known”) conflicts with the statute’s requirement of actual knowledge; (c) insufficiency of evidence for breaking and entering; (d) jury instructions for B&E and attempted B&E omitted the knowledge element; and (e) prosecutorial comments invited the jury to consider consequences of conviction.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trespass conviction for the Rule 5-204(A) violation, held UJI 14-1402’s “should have known” language is erroneous and should be changed to track the statute, and affirmed the remaining convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Ancira) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Midtrial amendment of trespass address | Amendment was a typographical correction, not a new charge; permissible under Rule 5-204(A) | Changing 1000 to 1002 Dewey added a new charge after close of evidence, violating Rule 5-204(A) and prejudicing defense | Reversed trespass conviction: amendment amounted to a new charge and prejudiced Ancira (Rule 5-204(A) violated) |
| 2. UJI 14-1402 mens rea language | UJI is acceptable model instruction | UJI’s “knew or should have known” lowers statutory mens rea (statute requires actual knowledge) | UJI 14-1402’s “should have known” is erroneous; Court suggests modifying UJI to track statute’s actual-knowledge requirement |
| 3. Sufficiency of evidence for breaking & entering | Evidence (broken crank, screen inside, footprints, ransacked bathroom, defendant found asleep inside) supports dismantling entry beyond reasonable doubt | State failed to prove dismantling/breaking of the bathroom window | Affirmed: substantial circumstantial evidence supports breaking and entering conviction |
| 4. Jury instructions omitted knowledge element for B&E and attempted B&E | Instructions sufficiently described offenses; any omission harmless given evidence | Omission of an instruction that knowledge of lack of permission is required | Error occurred (element omitted) but not fundamental: element was not disputed and evidence so strong that no rational jury could have found defendant believed he had permission; convictions affirmed |
| 5. Prosecutorial comment invited jury to consider consequences | Comments did not ask jury to impose punishment; instruction told jury not to consider consequences | Arguing charges were “serious” invited consideration of consequences | No reversible error: instruction did not encourage jury to consider consequences; trial court’s admonition presumed followed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Stevens, 323 P.3d 901 (N.M. 2014) (standard of review for Rule 5-204 application)
- State v. Roman, 964 P.2d 852 (N.M. Ct. App. 1998) (distinguishing permissible amendment from an amended information that adds a new charge)
- State v. Lucero, 440 P.2d 806 (N.M. Ct. App. 1968) (address correction held typographical and nonprejudicial in different factual context)
- State v. Suazo, 390 P.3d 674 (N.M. 2017) (instructional use of “knew or should have known” misstates statutory mens rea and is erroneous)
- State v. Merhege, 394 P.3d 955 (N.M. 2017) (discussed UJI but did not challenge model instruction’s mens rea language)
- State v. Contreras, 167 P.3d 966 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007) (knowledge is the mental state required for the “without permission” element of breaking and entering)