331 P.3d 971
N.M. Ct. App.2014Background
- Defendant entered Costco with a non-member group; a member’s card belonging to another person was presented to the greeter, who did not verify photos along with the card.
- Group members placed items into a purse and attempted to leave the store with those items after shopping; loss-prevention detained them for alleged theft.
- Costco policies were disputed at trial; greeter and loss-prevention gave conflicting accounts of entry eligibility and card checks.
- Defendant was convicted of commercial burglary on the theory that presenting the membership card constituted an unauthorized entry.
- The trial court and the Court of Appeals considered whether Costco’s open-to-public policy affected the unauthorized-entry element of burglary.
- The Court ultimately reversed the conviction, holding that Costco’s membership policies do not negate the presumption that retail stores are open to the public.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether non-member entry with another’s membership card is unauthorized | State argued it was unauthorized entry via fraud | Baca argued entry was not unauthorized under burglary statute | Not unauthorized; conviction reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ortiz, 92 N.M. 166 (1978-NMCA-074) (entry must be unauthorized for burglary)
- State v. Rogers, 83 N.M. 676 (1972-NMCA-053) (retail entry generally open to public; implied permission)
- State v. Tower, 133 N.M. 32 (2002-NMCA-109) (revocation of permission to enter may render entry unauthorized)
- Office of Pub. Defender ex rel. Muqqddin, 285 P.3d 622 (2012-NMSC-029) (limits broad application of burglary; focuses on structure security interests)
- State v. Sanchez, 105 N.M. 619 (1987-NMCA-035) (distinction between open/closed areas within a retail store)