State v. Holt, 368 P.3d 409

On Dec. 19, 2010, homeowner Carolyn Stamper observed Anthony Holt partially removing the living-room window screen and bending it; his fingers extended behind the screen and into the outer boundary of the home.\
Stamper was about 2.5 feet from Holt when she saw him; Holt looked up, apologized, and fled.\
Holt was arrested and charged with breaking and entering under NMSA 1978, § 30-14-8(A); the indictment alleged unauthorized entry obtained by dismantling a window screen.\
At trial the court denied Holt’s motion for directed verdict on the ground the State presented sufficient evidence of entry; a jury convicted Holt.\
The Court of Appeals affirmed in a divided opinion; the New Mexico Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether placing fingers behind a window screen constitutes an “entry.”

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether placing fingers behind a window screen is an "entry" under § 30-14-8(A)	Entry occurs because a window screen forms the outer barrier of a dwelling and occupants reasonably expect screens to protect possessory/privacy rights	Entry requires penetration of interior protected space; the space behind a screen is not interior, so no entry occurred	Court held that placing fingers behind an affixed window screen is an intrusion into an enclosed, private, prohibited space and thus qualifies as an "entry."

State v. Tixier, 89 N.M. 297, 551 P.2d 987 (N.M. Ct. App.) (any penetration, however slight, of interior space constitutes entry)\
State v. Sorrelhorse, 150 N.M. 536, 263 P.3d 313 (N.M. Ct. App.) (the least intrusion may constitute entry)\
State v. Office of Pub. Def. ex rel. Muqqddin, 285 P.3d 622 (N.M. 2012) (modern burglary protections tied to right to exclude and expectation of privacy)\
People v. Nible, 247 Cal. Rptr. 396 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988) (a screen forming the outer barrier of a dwelling can be a boundary for entry)