Th is m e mor and um o pin ion

wa s n ot s e le c te d f

or pu bli c atio n in

the Ne w M e xico Ap pe llate Re po rt s. Plea s e s e e Ru le 1 2
- 4 0 5 N M RAf o r r e s tr ic ti o n s o nth e c it ati o no f un p u b li s h e d me morandum op in ions. Ple a se a lso no te that th is e le c tr on ic me mor and um o pin ion

may c on ta in computer- g ener ated e rror s or other de viations from the off icial paper version filed by the Court of Appea ls and does not include the f iling date
. 1 IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO 2 STA TE OF NE W MEX ICO, 3 Plaintiff-Appellee, 4 v
. N O. 33, 423 5 JE SSE RI VERA, 6 D ef

en dant- Appe llant. 7 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF LEACO UN TY 8 M ar k T. S an ch ez , D ist ri ctJu dg e 9 He ctor H . B alderas, Attorney Ge neral 10 Santa Fe , N M 11 Steven H . Johnston , A ssistant Attorney Ge neral 12 Albuquerque, N M 13 for Appellee 14 Bennett J. Ba

ur, C hief Public De fender 15 Nina L alevic, Assistant Appellate D efender 16 Santa Fe , N M 17 fo r Appe llant 18 MEM ORA ND UM OP INION 19 VA NZ I, Jud ge.2

1 { 1} A j ur

y be lie ve d th at

D ef en da nt J es se Ri ve ra

f or ce d op enthe doo r of

K im be rl y 2 Mendoza’ s apartm ent intendi ng to comm it a robbery . A s a result, De fendant wa s 3 convicted of various o ffenses, includin g breaking and entering, co n t rary to NMS A 4 1978 , S e c t i o n 3 0
- 1 4
- 8 ( 1 9 8 1 ) , a n dr e s i d e n t i a l b u r g l a ry , c o n t r a ry t o N M S A 1 9 78, 5 Se ct ion30- 16- 3 (1 971)
. H e now ar gue s tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt i m pr ope rl y li m ite d hi s 6 de fen se by excl ud in g on e wit ne ss an d l im it in g t he cro ss -ex am in at io n o f an ot he r. He 7 a l s o c o n t e n d s t h a t h i s c o n v i c t i o n s v i o l a t e t h e r i g h tt o b e f r e e f r o m d o ub l e je o p a r d y. 8 { 2} W e af

fi rm in th e fir st re spe ct , but

w e co nc lud e tha t the j ur y w as im pr ope rl y 9 ins tr uc te d onthe e le m en ts o f br eakin g and ent er ing , w hic h, al tho ugh not ar gue d, is 10 re ve rs ibl e in i ts ow n r igh t. T ha t e rr one ous ins tr uc tio n a lso r es ult ed

in a doub le 11 j eopardy

violatio n . B ecause this is a m em orandum opini on and because the parties 12 ar e fam ili ar

w iththe c as e, w e re se rv e dis cu ssi on o f the f ac ts f or o ur an al y sis of

the 13 iss ue s onappe al
. 14 DISC US SION 15 Exclusion of A lexander Rivera 16 { 3} D ef

en dant hope d to se cure the te sti m ony of A le xa nde r Ri ve ra , his br oth er a nd 17 al lege d co -c onsp ir at or , w ho w as tr ie d se pa rate ly
. I n vi ola tio n of Ru le 5- 502( A )( 3) 18 NMR A, De fendant did no t fil e his witness disclosu re until 4:57 p.m . on the Fr iday 19 before a Monday trial. Like m ost governm ent offices, the Le a CountyDistrict C ourt3

1 cl erk ’s off

ic e is op en un ti l 5 :0 0 p .m ., and c l os edon week en ds , see Fifth Judicial 2 Di st r i c t C ou r t , h tt p: / / f i f thd i st r i c t c ou r t . nm c ou r t s. gov (last vis ited Sept. 2, 2016 ), which 3 m eans tha t D ef

en dant w ai te d un til vir

tua lly the la st pos si ble m inu te to dis cl ose his 4 witness. H e also failed to disclose A lexander to the jury during vo ir dire. The record 5 co nta ins no e xpl an at ionf or a ny of thi s. 6 { 4} T he se a re not te ch nic al iti es . T he la te dis cl osur e ga ve the S ta te no r ea sona ble 7 oppo rt uni ty to co nduc t a pr etri al int er vie w ove r the w ee ke nd, obt ai n tr an sc ri pts ( fo r 8 im pe ac hm en t) f

ro m A le xande r’ s own tri al , se ar chit s r ec or ds f or A le xa nde r’ s pr ior 9 co nvi ct ion s ( if

a ny ), pr ep ar e to o ppos e an y appl ic at ionf

or use im m uni ty ( if 10 w ar ran te d), or

ge ne ra lly

pr ep ar e fo r cr oss -e xa m ina tio n. T he f ai lur e to d isc uss 11 Alexander with the j ury during v oir dire also raised the possibi lity that Alexander had 12 fr ie nds, a sso ci at es , e ne m ie s, or oth er s on the j ur

y w ho wo uld not be im

pa rt ia l to hi s 13 te st im on y . 14 { 5} In hi s b rie f, Defen da nt va gu el y as se rts hi s fu nd am en ta l ri gh t t o p ut on hi s o wn 15 de fe nse , but

“ the m er e inv oc at ionof

that r ight c an not

auto m at ic al ly

a nd i nvari ab ly 16 outweigh count ervailing pub lic interests.” M cC art y v. Sta te , 19 88 -NMSC -0 79 , ¶ 7, 17 107 N.M. 651, 763 P. 2d 360 (internal quot ation m arks and citation om itted). B efore 18 ex cl udi ng e vid en ce f

or ade fend an t’ s vi ola tio n of adis co ve ry

r ule , ac ourt sh oul d 19 w ei gh the e xte nt o f pr ose cu tor ia l surp ri se or pr ej udi ce a ga ins t the im

portanc e of

the4

1 evidence to the defense. Se e Sta te v . G ue rra , 2012 -N MS C- 014, ¶ 33, 278 P. 3d 1 031; 2 M cC art y , 1988-NMS C-079, ¶ 10. W e re view a district court’ s decision to exclude a 3 wit ne ss foran ab us e o f di sc ret io n. G ue rra , 201 2- N MS C- 014, ¶ 23 . “ An abuse of 4 dis cr et ionoc curs w he n th e ru lin g is cl earl y ag ai nst the log ic a nd e ff

ec ts o f the f

ac ts 5 and circum stances of the case, is c learly untenable, or is not j ustified byrea son.” Sta te 6 v. Bal de ra ma , 200 4- N MS C- 008, ¶ 22, 135 N
. M. 329 , 88 P
. 3d 8 45. 7 { 6} W e w ill as sum e tha t A le xande r w oul d have c or ro bor at ed D ef en da nt’ s ve rs ion 8 o f ev en ts , th ou gh Defen da nt m ad e n o o fferof p ro of be lo w. See St a t e v . C

a m p be ll , 9 2007 -N MC A -0 51, ¶

14, 141 N
. M. 543, 157 P. 3d 722 (“ [N ] o m or e pr ej udi ce ne ed be 10 shown th anthat the [ dis tr ic t] c ourt’ s or de r m ay ha ve m ad e a potentia l ave nue of 11 de fe nse unava ila

ble to the de fe ndant. ” (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks and c itatio n 12 om itt ed ))
. T he re co rd is ina de qua te to det er m ine the im

portanc e of

thi s c or ro bor at ion , 13 but we note that De fendant never treated Alexander as an im portant witness. H e never 14 ap pl ie d fo r imm

un it y to se cu re Alex an de r’s te st im on y . See State v. B elanger , 200 9- 15 NMS C-025, ¶ 38, 146 N. M. 357, 210 P. 3d 78 3. He never issued a sub poena to ensu re 16 A le xande r’ s a tte ndanc e at tr ia l, an d he appare ntl y

f or got about A le xa nde r dur ing voi r 17 di re. 18 { 7} On the other side of the equation, allowing th e testi m ony despite the late notice 19 to the S ta te w oul d have li m ite d th e St at e’ s a bil ity to ef fe ct ive ly c ross -ex am ine the5

1 w itn es s. O pti ons fo r curi ng any pr ej udi ce w oul d have raise d ne wpr obl em s. 2 Co nt in ua nc es aft er t he jury is em pa ne le d a re n ot fav or ed , see State v. Br anch , N o. 3 33,064, 2016 W L 3014609 , 2016-NMC A- ___, ¶ 5 6, __ _ P.3d ___ (May

23, 2016), 4 cert. gran ted , 201 6- N MC E RT -0 07 , _

__ P. 3d _ __ (N o. 35, 951, Jul y

28, 201 6) , a nd 5 a m id-trial re-voir dire of the j ury could have resulted in a m istrial if it turned out th at 6 any j uror knew A lexander. 7 { 8} Furthe rm or e, D ef en dant h as not

giv ena ny

e xpl an at ionf

or the r ule vio la tio ns, 8 an d w e cannot dis m iss the re al poss ibi lity of sandba ggi ng an d g am es m an shi p. 9 M c C art y , 198 8- N MS C- 079, ¶

16 ( “ T he tr ia l j udge sho uld c onsi de r w he the r the 10 nonco m

pli an ce w as aw ill fu l a tte m pt t o pr ev en t the [ s] ta te f ro m inv es tig at ing f

ac ts 11 ne ce ssary

f or the prep ar at ionof

it s c as e. ”)
. D ef

en da nt m ust ha ve kno w n th at

his 12 brother and alleged co-conspirator had potent ially relevant testim ony

from the very 13 be gin nin g of

the c as e. D es pit e ha vin g ne ar ly a y ear to ap ply fo r im

m uni ty an d pr ovi de 14 notice to the State, he wa ited unti l the last m inute before trial—w hen the court was 15 about to close for the we ekend and the transcripts from Ale xander’ s own trial w ere 1 6 lik el y o u t o f r e a c h
. Wh i l e D e f e n d a n t ’ s r i g h t t o p r e s e n t a d e f e n s e c a n n o tbe 17 m ini m iz ed , “ the int eg ri ty of the a dve rs ar

y pr oces s, w hic h de pe nds both onthe 18 pr es en ta tio n of re lia

ble e vid en ce a nd the r ej ec tio n of unr el ia ble e vid en ce ; the int er es t 19 in the f

ai r an d e ffici en t a dm ini str at ionof j ust ic e; a nd the pot en tia l pr ej udi ce to the6

1 truth-dete rm ining function of the trial process m ust also weigh in th e balance. ” Id

. 2 ¶ 1 0 (a lt erat io n, i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s, an d c it at io n o m it te d)
. 3 { 9} D ef

en dant arg ue s th at

A le xa nde r m ay

h av e be ene xc lud ed

f or the w ro ng r ea son 4 (the f ai lur e to i ssu e a su bp oe na ). Bu t tha t i s no t our standard ; w e w ill a ff irm the 5 di st ric t cou rt if it is r ig ht foran y reas on . Sta te v . Ybarra , 1990 -N MS C- 109, ¶ 8, 111 6 N.M. 234, 804 P.2d 1053 . R egardless, the r ecord does not su pport Defe nda n t ’s 7 co nte nti on. T he c ourt e xc lud ed the w itn es s wit hout e xpl an at ion , a s D ef en dant 8 re co gni ze s in hi s br ief
. “ Abuse of

dis cr et ionc an not

be pr es um ed

but m ust be 9 af fi rm atively

established.” Sta te v . Se rra no , 1 9 6 6
- N M S C
- 1 6 6 , ¶ 1 3 , 7 6 N
. M
. 655 , 10 417 P. 2d 7 95. “ It

f oll ow s th at

if th e re co rd

is sil en t a s to the r ea sons f or ar uli ng, 11 regularity

and corr ec t n es s are pr esum ed.” Id

. ; se e Sta te v . R ojo , 199 9- N MS C- 001, 1 2 ¶ 5 3 , 1 2 6 N
. M
. 4 3 8 , 9 7 1 P
. 2 d8 2 9 ( “ Wh e r e t h e r e i s ad o ub t f u l o r d e f i c i e n tr e c or d, 13 ev er y pr es um pti on m ust be ind ulg ed by the r ev ie w ing c ou rt in f av or of the 14 co rr ec tne ss and r eg ul ari ty of the [ dis tr ic t] c ourt’ s j udgm en t. ” (i nte rn al quo ta tio n 15 m ar ks and c itatio n om itt ed ))
. O n th is r ec or d, w e co nc lud e tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt di d 16 not abuse it s di sc re tio n w he n it pr ev en te d A le xa nde r fr om te sti fy ing
. 17 Cr oss-Exam ination of D etec tive Mir anda 18 { 10} As part of his inv estigation , D etective Da v i d Miranda interviewe d Mendoza 1 9 a n dtw o i n d i v i du a l s , h e r h u s b a n da n db r o t h e r , t h a tw e r e w i t h h e r w h e n t h e h o me7

1 invasio n occurred. He believed their statem ents wer e consiste n t , and he testified 2 ac co rd ing ly
. D ef

en dant s ough t t o im

pe ac h th at

te sti m on y by

hig hli ght ing vari ous 3 dif fe re nc es in the thr ee state m en ts. T he dis tr ic t co urt pe rm itt ed the li ne of que sti oni ng 4 but to ld defense counsel to “ zero in on the inconsi stencies” because the court w as 5 concerned that the details seem ed inconseq uential and would waste the j ury ’ s tim e. 6 A ppar e n t l y a t t e m

p t i n g t o s p e e d t h i n g s a l o n g , t h e c o u rt p r o v i d e d t h e f o rm the 7 questio ns sho uld take: “ In y our report, y ou asserted that X wa s true. In fac t, Yis true. 8 Correc t? ” 9 { 11} Upon cr oss -e xa m ina tio n of D et ec tiv e Mi randa , de fe nse co unse l de via te d f ro m 10 the district court’ s sugg ested form at, an d the State obj ected, and the objection wa s 11 sus ta ine d. Cr oss -exam ina tio n c ont inu ed unt il it w as e ve ntu al ly

r ev ea le d th at

the 12 statem ents wer e, in fact, not entirely consistent in at least one im portant respect. That 13 is, w hile Mendoza and her h usband stated that the doo r w as broken open, her brother 14 st at edth atMen do za p art ia ll y op en edth e d oo r he rs el f be fo re i t was pu sh edop en . 15 { 12} It

is thi s se em ing ly

inn oc uous bit

of unc er ta inty that w ill ult im at el y le ad

to our 16 re ve rs al of

the br eakin g and e nte ri ng c onvi ct ion , but not on the gr ound th at c ro ss17 ex am ina tio n w as ina

ppr opr ia te ly

li m ite d. T ha t arg um en t m ust f ai l f or the ba sic r ea son 18 tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s r uli ngs did

not a ct ua lly pr ev en t D ef

en da nt f ro m im pe ac hin g 19 the witness. “ The C onfrontation Clause guarantees an oppo rtuni ty fo r ef fe ct ive c r o ss-8

1 exam i n at i o n , n o tcr o s s -e x amin at i o n t h at i s ef fe ct i v e i n wh at ev erwa y, an dt o whatever 2 extent, the defe nse m ight wish.” State v. M onto ya , 201 4- N MS C- 032, ¶

47, 333 P
. 3d 3 935 (a lte ratio n, int er

na l qu otati on m arks, a nd c itatio n om itt ed ); se e Sta te v . Sm ith , 4 2001 -N MS C- 004, ¶

19, 130 N
. M. 117 , 19 P
. 3d 2 54 (“ [T]he [d istri ct ] c ourt r et ai ns 5 w ide la tit

ude ins of ar a s the Co nf

ro nta tio n C lause is co nc er ne d to im pose r ea sona

ble 6 l i mi t s o n c ro ss -ex am in at io n b as edon co nc ern s ab ou t, am on g o th er t hi ng s, . . . 7 interrogation th at is repetitive or only m argina l l y re levant.” ( om issio n, internal 8 quot ation m arks, and citation om itt ed ))
. De fendant had his op portuni ty to im peach 9 D et ec tiv e Mi randa , a nd his que sti oni ng— ev en fo llo w ing the fo rm ula inv en te d by

the 1 0 c o u rt

— u n c o v e r e d

t h e i n c o n s i s t e n c y th a th e wa n t e dt o p r e s e n tt o t h e ju ry. 11 Break

ing and En terin g 12 { 13} For w hatever re ason, th e State altered the elem ents set forth in the uni form j ury 13 ins tr uc tio n f or br eakin g and e nte ri ng wh en it subm itt ed its r eque ste d in str uc tio ns t o 14 th e co ur t. We h av e cau ti on ed ag ai ns t rewri ti ng in st ru ct io ns in th e p as t. Se e Ja ck son 15 v. Sta te , 198 3- N MS C- 098, ¶ 5, 100 N
. M. 487, 672 P
. 2d 6 60 ( “N onc om pli an ce w ith 16 the uniform

j ury instruction s in crim inal cases is revers i b l e er ror if the f

ailure 17 el im ina te s an e sse nti al e le m en t of the c ri m e in the ins tr

uc tion or if

the de fe ndant i s 18 pr ej udi ce d. ”) ; Sta te v. W atc hm an , 2005 -N MC A -1 25, ¶ 15, 138 N
. M. 488 , 122 P
. 3d9

1 855 (“ [U ] niform j ury instructio ns and use notes are to be followed w ithou t subs tantial 2 m od ifi cat io n.” (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d) ). 3 { 14} Ge nerally , an elem ents instructio n m ay onlybe altere d if altera tion is necessary 4 to c onve y

the lawto the j ur

y a nd o nly if the m od ifi cation is s uppo rt ed by bin din g 5 pr eced en t o r un iq ue cir cu m st an ces in a pa rti cu la r cas e. See U JI Cr im ina l, G en er al U se 6 N ote N MR

A
. I f a “ co urt de te rm ine s th at auni fo rm

ins truc ti on m

us t be a lte re d, the 7 reasons for the alter at i o n m u st be stated in the record.” Id

. In this case, the court 8 ac ce pte d th e St at e’ s pr opos ed ins tr uc tio n w ith out

statin g any

r ea son fo r de vi ating 9 fro m th e el em en ts in UJI 1 4- 14 10 NMRA. 10 { 15} Inpe rt ine nt par t, the se co nd ele m en t of the uni fo rm ins tr uc tio n r equir es pr oof 11 tha t “ en tr

y w as obt ai ne d by

[ fr au d] [ de ce pti on] [ the br eakin g of ___ ____ ] [ the 12 dis m an tli ng o f

____

___ . ] ” U JI 14- 1410 ( fo otn ote om itt ed ). T he use not es ins tr uc t the 13 court to choos e betwe en the four, bracketed alter natives for obtainin g entry , and w hen 14 en tr y is obt ai ne d by br eakin g or dis m an tli ng a s op pose d to f ra ud o r de ce pti on, the use 15 notes prov ide that the instructio n m ust sp ecify

the property o r d ev ice that w as 16 actually

broken. N one of that happened h er e. The j ury wa s instead ins tructed that 17 D ef en dant c oul d be c onvi ct ed if “ [t ] he e ntr

y w as obt ai ne d by

f or ci ng o pe n th e fr ont 18 door [. ] ” T ha t i nstru ct ionw as onl y pr ope r if it sub stanti al ly fo llo w ed the langua ge of10

1 th e st atut e o r us edeq ui va le nt lan gu ag e. Sta te v . R ubi o , 1 9 9 9
- N M C A
- 0 1 8 , ¶ 6 , 126 2 N.M. 57 9, 9 73 P.2d 25 6. 3 { 16} A s it

tur ns out, the dis tin ct ionbe tw ee n br eakin g and f or ci ble e ntr

y is im portant 4 in o ur law . Whe n e ntr

y is not obt ai ne d by fr au d or de ce pti on, the of

fe nse of br eakin g 5 and entering requires an actual “ breaking.” See § 30 -1 4- 8( A ) (“ Br eakin g and e nte ri ng 6 co nsi sts of

the una uth or iz ed e ntr y of a ny . . . dw el lin g . . . by

the br eakin g or 7 dis m an tli ng o f an y

part of the
. . . dw el lin g . . . or by the br eakin g or

dis m an tli ng o f 8 an y de vic e use d to se cure the
. . . dw el lin g. ”)
. T his is not asit ua tio n w he re the statut e 9 m ean s s om et hi ng ot he r th an what it says. Se e Sta te v . Sorre lho rse , 201 1- N MC A -0 95, 10 ¶ 20, 150 N
. M. 536 , 263 P
. 3d 3 13 ( int er pr et ing the br eakin g and enter ing statut e 11 according to its p l ai n t er m s); Sta te v . M ic hae l S. , 1995-NMC A- 112, ¶ 3, 120 N.M. 12 617, 904 P.2d 595 (“ Or dinarily , w e should give effe ct t o t h e plain language of a 13 st atut e.”). 14 { 17} T he re a re tw o c om pe tin g m eanin gs of th e term “ br eakin g. ” T he f

ir st i s 15 “ br eakin g” in the le ga l se nse a t c om m on l aw , w hic h is “ to fo rc e en tr y int o[ ;] e nte r by 16 force or violence[;] open for illegal entry [. ] ” W eb ste r’ s T hird N ewI nt’ l D ic tio nary 17 271 (unabr idg ed ed
. 198 6) ; see B lack’s Law D ictiona ry 227 (1 0th ed
. 201 4) ( “ Inthe 18 m od ern Am eri can cri m in al co de s, on ly s el do m is th ere a req ui rem en t of a b reak in g.” 19 (i nte rn al quo ta tio nm ar k s and c itatio n om itt ed ))
. T ha t de fi nit ionc los el y r es em ble s th e11

1 fo rc ibl e- en tr

y -ty pe ins tr uc tio n gi ve n inthi s c as e. T he se co nd i s th e or din ar y m eanin g 2 of “ br eakin g” a s un de rs too d by or din ar y pe opl e: “ to s pl it int o pi ec es or sm as h in to 3 pa rts or f

rag m en ts t yp i c a l l y

by a blo w or s tre ss an d wi th su dd en ne ss or v io le nc e.” 4 W eb ste r’ s T hird N ewI nt’ l D ic tio nary27 1. 5 { 18} Whe n th e L eg isl at ur e en ac te d Se ct ion30- 14- 8( A ), it f av or ed the la tte r ove r the 6 fo rm er a nd dep ar

te d f ro m c om m on l awbur glary

c onc ep ts tha t pe rm itt ed

ac onvi ct ion 7 base d o n “ breaking the close” and other noti ons of cons tructive breaking that are 8 arch ai c o ut si de th e la w. Sorr elhors e , 2011-N MC A -0 95, ¶ 20. “ [B ] y

a ddr es sin g th e 9 ‘break in g’ o f ‘any

pa rt’ or‘ an y

de vi ce u se d t o s ecu re,’ ” Sect io n 3 0- 14 -8 (A) 10 “ contem

plates a phy sical breaking contrary to com m on law burglary .” Sorr elhors e , 11 2011 -N MC A -0 95, ¶ 20 . Thus, w e he ld i n Sorr elhors e that c ri m ina l dam ag e to 12 pr ope rty

is a le sse r inc lud ed of

fe nse of br eakin g and ent er ing be ca use ac tua l pr ope rty 13 da m ag e is an el em en t of bo th off en se s. Id

. ¶ 21. I n othe r w or ds, c onsi ste nt w iththe 14 pla in l an gua ge of

the st at ut e, br eakin g and e nte ri ng i n N ewMe xic o punis he s th e 15 in va si on of a clo se d s tru ctur e eff ect ua te d b y

ph y si cal da m ag e to th atst ru ctur e. See 16 ge ne ral ly U JI 14- 1410 co m m . cm t. (“ [I ] f a per son ope ns an unlo ck ed door
. . . w ith 17 the intent to m erely

go in and li e down, that person would be gui lty of neither 18 burglary

nor breaking and entering. It would not be .
. . bre aking and entering since 19 th e d oo r was no t l oc ke d a nd no bre ak in g o r di sm an tl in g o ccu rred .”).12

1 { 19} As m entioned earlier, De fendant’ s im peachm ent of De tective Miranda ca lled 2 into q uestion whether

any one actually

broke open the d o o r. In truth, that issue was 3 factually

in disp u t e t h ro u g hout . F or instance, ther e w as a dispute about whether a 4 crowbar or other tool wa s used to effectuate e ntry because no such too l wa s ever see n 5 by a ny w itn es s or

f ound by pol ic e; inv es tig at ing of fi ce rs los t the phot ogr ap hs o f the 6 door that the y te sti fi ed w oul d have c or ro bor at ed Me ndoz a’ s te sti m ony

that he r door 7 show ed

da m ag e af

te r the inc ide nt; a nd M en doz a’ s br oth er , pr es en t i n he r ap ar tm en t 8 dur ing the hom e inv as ion , appare ntl y be li ev ed that M en doz a pa rt ia lly ope ne d th e 9 door before D efendant pushed h i s way in. D etective Miranda disregarded that 10 sta te m en t i n hi s te sti m ony be ca use he th ough t tha t M en doz a’ s br oth er ha d apoo r 1 1 v a n t a g e p o i n t b e c au s e h e w a s e n t e r i n g t h e l i v i n g r o o m f r o m an o t h e r

r o o m a tt h e t i me 12 of the com

m otion at the door. B ut the jury m ay have decided not to credit Mendoza 13 orDete ct iv e Mi ran da
. Se e M urph y v. F rin km an , 1978 -N MCA -127, ¶ 2 2 , 9 2 N.M. 14 428, 589 P
. 2d 21 2 (“ Af te r he ar ing w itn es se s te sti fy , the j ur y te sts the c re dib ili ty

of 15 th e wit ne ss . They m ay di sb el ie ve eit he r pa rty.”). 16 { 20} As a result, the j ury could have believed that De fendant forced open a door that 17 wa s alrea dy partly open and still properly applied the language f rom th e i m

proper 18 instructio n—t hat “ entry wa s obtained b y

forcing open the front doo r”—to convict 19 D ef en dant o f br eakin g and e nte ri ng. A lth oughthe e lem en ts in the j ur y ins tr uc tio n13

1 ha ve not

be enc ha lle nge d be lowor on a ppe al , it w oul d be w ro ng t o le t tha t c onvi ct ion 2 st an d. State v. B arber , 2004-NMS C-019, ¶ 8, 135 N. M. 621, 92 P.3d 633 (“ [T ] here 3 exists in every

co u rt an inherent power to see that a m an’ s fundam ental rights are 4 protected in every

case. ” (om issio n, internal quotation m arks, and citation om itted)); 5 Sta te v. Osb orne , 199 1- N MS C- 032, ¶ 40, 111 N
. M. 654 , 808 P
. 2d 6 24 ( “ [I ] t i s th e 6 duty of the co urt, not the de fe ndant, to ins tr uc t the j ur

y on the e sse nti al e le m en ts o f 7 a cr im e. ”). 8 { 21} Ina ny

c as e, D ef

en da nt do es a rg ue that hi s c onvi ct ion s f or br eakin g and 9 en te ri ng and b ur glary

vio la te his r igh t t o be f

re e fr om double j eo pa rdy . T ha t w ill a lso 10 necessitate rever sal of the breaking and entering convi ction, which im poses th e lesser 11 se nt en ce. See State v. Montoya , 2 0 1 3 -N M SC -0 2 0 , ¶5 5 , 3 0 6 P. 3 d4 2 6 . De fe n d an t ’s 12 ar gum en t r ai se s a doub le -d es cr ipt ion ch al le nge tha t re qui re s w e fi rs t de ci de f ac tua lly 13 “ whe th er t he co nd uc t u nd erl y in g t he off en se s i s u ni ta ry , i.e. , w h e t h e r t h e s a me 14 conduct vi olates both statutes[,] ” and if so , we c onsid er the legal question “ whether 15 the [ L ] eg isl at

ur e int en de d to crea te sep arat el y pu ni sh ab le off

en se s.” Sw af

fo rd v. Sta te , 16 1991 -N MSC- 043, ¶ 25, 112 N. M. 3, 810 P. 2d 1223. The S tate appropriately concedes 17 uni tary

c ondu ct sin ce the sin gle a ct

of e nte ri ng the apa rtm en t i s th e fa ct ua l ba sis f

or 18 both c onvi ct ion s.14

1 { 22} Whe n, a s he re , the statut es the m se lve s do not e xpr es sly

pr ovi de f or m ul tiple 2 puni shm en ts, w e be ginby appl y ing th e rule of

statut or y c onstru ct ionf

ro m 3 Blockburger v. United States , 284 U
. S. 299, 304 (1 932) , to e nsur e tha t e ac h pr ovi sio n 4 req ui res pr oo f of a fact th atth e o th er d oe s n ot . Sw aff ord , 199 1- N MS C- 043, ¶

¶ 10, 30. 5 In conductin g our Blockburger analy sis of a statute that c ontains m ultip le alternatives 6 fo r co m

m itt ing a n of

fe nse ( i. e. , in thi s c as e by f ra ud, de ce pti on, br eakin g, or 7 di sm an tl in g) , we lo okto th e el em en ts as c ha rg edin th e jury ins tru ct io ns . See State v. 8 Gutierrez , 201 1- N MS C- 024, ¶¶ 53, 58, 150 N
. M. 232 , 258 P
. 3d 1 024. T his is sim ply 9 a te st t o de te rm ine whe th er o ne of fe nse , a s c ha rg ed

to the j ur

y , is a le sse r of

fe nse 10 in cl ud edwit hi n t he ot he r, Stat e v. Ram irez , N o. 34, 303, 201 6 W L 303 0154 , 201 6- 11 NMCA-_

__ , ¶ 22 , __

_ P .3d __ _ (M ay 25 , 20 16 ), cert. denied , 201 6- N MC E RT -0 07, 12 ___ P. 3d ___ (N o. 35,949, July 20, 2016), because a defendant cannot be punis hed 13 fo r bo th a gr eat er an d i ts les se r of fen se , see G utierrez , 201 1- N MS C- 024, ¶ ¶ 58- 60. 14 { 23} T he S ta te , c iti ng Sorr elhors e , pe rs ua siv el y ar gue s th at br eakin g and e nte ri ng 15 is n ot a

le sse r incl ud ed

of fe nse of bur glary

—w he n e ntr

y is ef fe ct ua te d by 16 br eakin g—b ec au se the de fi nit ionof “ br eakin g” in the br eakin g and e nte ri ng s ta tut e 17 “ co nt em

pl at es a ph y si cal br eak in g co nt rary t o co m m on la w bu rg la ry .” 20 11 -NMCA18 095, ¶ 20; see also Sta te v. He rnan dez , 199 9- N MC A -1 05, ¶ 25, 127 N
. M. 769 , 98715

1 P. 2d 11 56 (“ Contrary to the com m on[] law definition of burglary , N ewMexico does 2 not cons ider ‘ breaking’ to be an elem ent of burglary .” ). 3 { 24} Bu t the re is a pr obl em w iththat. A cc or din g to that arg um en t, w hic h is w el l 4 taken, the only

elem ent that prevents breaking a n d en t erin g from being sub sum ed 5 within burglary is the sam e “ breaking” elem ent that wa s om itted f rom t h e ju ry 6 instructio n in this case. An un authorized—even forcible—entry that is not achieved 7 by brea ki ng co ul d a t m os t co ns ti tu te cri m i n a l t res pa ss , see NMS A 1978, § 30-14-1 8 (1 99 5) , wh ic h wo ul d b e a l es se r in cl ud edoff en se of b ur gl ary, Sta te v . R om er o , 199 8- 9 NMCA-0 57 , ¶ 16 , 12 5 N.M. 1 61 , 95 8 P .2d 11 9. 10 { 25} T he e ff

ec t of the e rr one ous U JI 14- 1410 e le m en ts instru ct ion w as tw of old : ( 1) 11 De fendant wa s puni shed for the crim e of for cibl e en t ry t h at does not exis t in New 12 Mexico; and (2) the crim e of for cible entry , as charged and instructed to th e j ury , w as 13 subs um ed

w ith in anothe r of

fense (r obbe ry ) tha t he w as a lso pun ish ed f or . T his a ll 14 st emm edfro m

th e u ne xp la in edfai lu re t o a dh ere t o th e la ng ua ge in UJI 1 4- 14 10 . As 1 5 a r e s u l t , w e r e v e r s e D e f e n d a n t ’ s c o n v i c t i o n f

o r b r e a k i n g a n d e n t e r i n g du e to the 16 erroneous m odifications m ade to UJI 14-141 0 in thi s case. 17 CON CLU SION 18 { 26} W e re ve rs e D ef en dant’ s c onvi ct ionf

or br eakin g and e nte ri ng and a ff irm in al l 19 oth er r es pe ct s.16

1 { 27} IT IS S O ORDERE D.
2

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 3 LI N D A M . V A N Z I, Ju dg e

4 WE CO NCUR:
5

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ 6 JO N A TH A N B. S U TI N , Ju dg e
7

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ 8 TI M OT HYL. GA R C IA , Ju dg e