State v. Begaye, 505 P.3d 855

Feb. 28, 2017: Ram Signs front window in Farmington smashed; interior rifled but nothing taken. Security footage shows a male in dark clothing; shoeprints and a crawl-under-fence path found outside.
Officer Nichols located Franklin Begaye nearby with glass shards on his jacket, muddy pants/boots; detained him and found black mechanic gloves and a small red flathead screwdriver (gloves wrapped around the screwdriver) in his pocket.
Begaye was charged with non-residential burglary (intent to commit theft/felony), breaking and entering (entry by breaking a window), and possession of burglary tools (gloves and screwdriver).
At trial the State admitted the surveillance video, scene photos, clothing, gloves, boots, and screwdriver; a jury convicted Begaye on all counts.
On appeal Begaye argued (1) burglary and breaking-and-entering convictions violate double jeopardy and (2) insufficient evidence supported possession-of-burglary-tools.
Court of Appeals: affirmed burglary and breaking-and-entering convictions; reversed possession-of-burglary-tools conviction and remanded for amended judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether convictions for burglary and breaking-and-entering violate double jeopardy	Statutes have distinct elements (intent to steal vs. means of entry); Legislature intended separate punishments	Both convictions arise from a single unauthorized entry and therefore violate double jeopardy	No double jeopardy violation; convictions may stand (elements and State's theories distinct)
Whether evidence was sufficient to convict for possession of burglary tools (gloves, screwdriver)	Discovery of tools on Begaye plus circumstantial facts permit inference of use or intent to use them in burglary	State lacked proof that tools were commonly used for burglary or that Begaye used/intended them to facilitate entry	Insufficient evidence as to both screwdriver and gloves; possession-of-burglary-tools conviction reversed

Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (elements test for double jeopardy)
Swafford v. State, 810 P.2d 1223 (double-jeopardy protection; unitary-conduct analysis)
Silvas v. State, 343 P.3d 616 (two-part double-description test; elements/legislative-intent analysis)
State v. Swick, 279 P.3d 747 (modified Blockburger — compare elements and State's theory)
State v. Sorrelhorse, 263 P.3d 313 (breaking-and-entering vs. burglary; common-law backdrop and purpose distinctions)
State v. Jennings, 691 P.2d 882 (actual use of an item can obviate proof that item is commonly used as a burglary tool)
State v. Hernandez, 987 P.2d 1156 (evidence of intent/use can support tool-possession conviction where tool used in furtherance of theft)
State v. Ford, 453 P.3d 471 (burglary-tools must be used or intended to facilitate entry; timing of possession/intended use is critical)
State v. Ledbetter, 472 P.3d 1287 (sufficiency review; jury instructions as law of the case and limits on speculation)