State v. Parvilus, 332 P.3d 281

Gerard Parvilus broke into his estranged wife Jahaira’s separate apartment in 2008, bound and later killed her boyfriend, then assaulted and kidnapped Jahaira; he was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder, two counts of first-degree kidnapping, aggravated burglary, aggravated assault, and interference with communications.
Aggravated burglary under NMSA 1978 § 30-16-4 requires an unauthorized entry of a dwelling with intent to commit a felony or theft plus an aggravating circumstance (e.g., being armed or committing a battery).
NMSA 1978 § 40-3-3 (marital property statute) provides that "neither husband nor wife has any interest in the property of the other, but neither can be excluded from the other’s dwelling."
The district court granted Parvilus’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and vacated the aggravated burglary conviction, holding § 40-3-3 precluded prosecution for entering a spouse’s dwelling.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding the civil nonexclusion provision allowed a spouse to enter the other’s separate residence without permission, even with criminal intent; the State sought certiorari.
The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed: it held § 40-3-3 is a domestic-relations/property statute and does not provide immunity from criminal prosecution for burglary of a spouse’s separate residence; Parvilus’s aggravated burglary conviction was reinstated.

Issue	State's Argument	Parvilus's Argument	Held
Whether § 40-3-3 (spousal nonexclusion) precludes criminal prosecution for aggravated burglary when a spouse enters the other’s separate dwelling without consent and with intent to commit a felony	§ 40-3-3 is a civil domestic-relations/property provision and was not intended to negate criminal liability; statutes should be read in context; criminal statute controls for burglary	§ 40-3-3 grants a spouse a right not to be excluded from the other’s dwelling, so entry cannot be "unauthorized" for purposes of the burglary statute	Court held § 40-3-3 does not provide immunity; burglary statute applies and aggravated burglary conviction reinstated
Whether, on the facts, Parvilus’s entry was "unauthorized" despite prior marital occupancy and lease history	Evidence showed Jahaira was sole leaseholder, Parvilus surrendered keys, and he entered surreptitiously through a window without permission — so entry was unauthorized	Parvilus relied on marital nonexclusion language and past shared occupancy to argue he had a right to enter	Court concluded factual record supports that entry was unauthorized and criminal intent was present, supporting the burglary conviction

State v. Rubio, 126 N.M. 579, 973 P.2d 256 (N.M. Ct. App. 1999) (noting weight of authority supports applying burglary statutes to spouses who enter a separate residence with criminal intent)
State v. Chavez, 34 N.M. 258, 280 P. 241 (N.M. 1929) (discussing legislative intent behind early marital property statutes as part of comprehensive property-rights reform)
People v. Sears, 63 Cal.2d 742 (Cal. 1965) (in bank) (declining to treat civil nonexclusion as a defense to criminal prosecution where spouse entered another’s residence to commit crime)
State v. Lilly, 86 Ohio St.3d 358, 717 N.E.2d 322 (Ohio 1999) (holding domestic-relations placement of nonexclusion statute indicates civil purpose and does not negate criminal liabilities)
People v. Johnson, 908 P.2d 125 (Colo. 1995) (en banc) (reversing dismissal of burglary charges where estranged husband lacked possessory right or license to make unauthorized entry)