352 P.3d 702
N.M. Ct. App.2015Background
- Stamper, a Las Cruces resident, hears a knock and then noises at her window while home with her dog.
- Defendant Holt is observed attempting to remove Stamper’s window screen, placing fingers between the screen and window.
- Stamper testifies the screen was partially detached and she felt frightened; screen damage required replacement.
- A jury convicts Holt of breaking and entering under NMSA 30-14-8(A) despite never entering Stamper’s interior.
- Member state establishes the question of whether space between screen and window is protected space under the statute.
- Court analyzes statutory text, purpose, and case law to determine if penetration into the screen/window space satisfies entry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the space between a window screen and the window qualify as prohibited space under the statute? | Holt argues the space is not inside the interior structure. | Stamper argues the space is protected, aligning with burglary boundaries. | Yes; space between screen and window is protected space. |
| Was there sufficient evidence that Holt entered the protected space? | State asserts Holt intruded into the space between screen and window. | Holt contends no actual interior entry occurred. | There is sufficient evidence Holt entered the protected space. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Muqqddin, 285 P.3d 622 (2012-NMSC-029) (limits expansion of 'entry' beyond interior boundaries; cautions against judicially enlarging protected space)
- People v. Valencia, 46 P.3d 920 (Cal. 2002) (enlarged view that a window screen can define protected space for burglary)
- State v. Rubio, 126 N.M. 579 (1999-NMCA-018) (burglary/purpose to protect possessory rights; informs space interpretation)
- State v. Chappell, 193 S.E.2d 924 (S.C. 1937) (screen penetration can constitute burglary when it breaches outer boundary)
- Commonwealth v. Burke, 467 N.E.2d 846 (Mass. 1984) (outer window coverings treated as part of dwelling; entry beyond them punishable)
- Barrick v. State, 119 N.E.2d 550 (Ind. 1954) (recognizes screen as security against invasion)
- Gatewood v. State, 221 P.2d 392 (Kan. 1950) (entry through screen-related breach considered burglary under certain conditions)