State v. Rivera
33,423
N.M. Ct. App.Sep 14, 2016Background
- Defendant Jesse Rivera was convicted by a jury of breaking and entering, residential burglary, robbery, and related offenses after forcibly entering Kimberly Mendoza’s apartment.
- Rivera sought to call his brother Alexander Rivera as a defense witness but disclosed him minutes before a Friday close of business under Rule 5-502(A)(3); the district court excluded Alexander’s testimony for that late disclosure and lack of voir dire notice.
- Rivera cross-examined Detective David Miranda to impeach consistency among witness statements about how entry occurred; cross-examination unearthed a material inconsistency (Mendoza’s brother said the door was partly open; others said it was broken open).
- The State submitted a modified jury instruction for breaking and entering that replaced the UJI’s required language about “breaking” or “dismantling” with the phrase "entry was obtained by forcing open the front door." The court gave that nonstandard instruction without stating reasons on the record.
- The court of appeals affirmed the evidentiary rulings (exclusion of Alexander and limits on form of cross-examination) but reversed the breaking-and-entering conviction because the modified instruction omitted the statute’s required element of a physical “breaking,” and that error produced a double-jeopardy problem with the burglary conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of Alexander Rivera (late witness disclosure) | State: Exclusion appropriate because disclosure came minutes before weekend, preventing preparation and voir dire notice; possible sandbagging | Rivera: Exclusion violated his right to present a defense | Held: Affirmed. District court did not abuse discretion given prejudice to State, lack of explanation, and risk of gamesmanship |
| Limitation on form of cross-examination of Detective Miranda | State: Court’s limits were reasonable to avoid repetitive or marginal questioning | Rivera: Limits impeded effective confrontation and impeachment | Held: Affirmed. Defendant had meaningful opportunity to impeach; Confrontation Clause not violated |
| Jury instruction for breaking and entering (alteration of UJI) | State: Modified language was sufficient to convict for unlawful entry by force | Rivera: Instruction omitted an essential element (physical breaking) | Held: Reversed breaking-and-entering conviction. Instruction improperly substituted “forcing open” for element of physical breaking/dismantling required by statute and UJI |
| Double jeopardy between breaking-and-entering and burglary | State: Breaking (as properly defined) is distinct from burglary so no double jeopardy | Rivera: Convictions violate double jeopardy because instruction effectively created overlapping offenses (forcible entry subsumed into burglary/robbery) | Held: Reversal required. Erroneous instruction created a nonstatutory forcible-entry offense that was subsumed in other convictions, producing a double-jeopardy violation |
Key Cases Cited
- McCarty v. State, 107 N.M. 651 (N.M. 1988) (defendant’s right to present a defense weighed against discovery violations and trial integrity)
- State v. Guerra, 278 P.3d 1031 (N.M. 2012) (discovery sanction analysis; balancing prejudice against defense importance)
- State v. Sorrelhorse, 150 N.M. 536 (N.M. Ct. App. 2011) (New Mexico breaking-and-entering requires physical breaking; distinguishes common-law constructive breaking)
- Jackson v. State, 100 N.M. 487 (N.M. 1983) (uniform jury instructions should not be rewritten where alteration eliminates an essential element)
- State v. Montoya, 333 P.3d 935 (N.M. 2014) (Confrontation Clause allows reasonable limits on cross-examination; conviction reversal and merger principles)