State v. Begaye
2022 NMCA 010 (2021)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Separate convictions for burglary and breaking and entering based on a single unauthorized entry do not violate double jeopardy if each offense requires proof of a distinct element the other does not, indicating legislative intent for separate punishments. A conviction for possession of burglary tools requires substantial evidence that the defendant actually used or intended to use the tools to facilitate entry and cannot be sustained by mere speculation or a series of unsupported inferences.
Facts:
- Around 8:00 p.m. on February 28, 2017, Michael Mordecki, a co-owner of the business Ram Signs, heard a loud bang from the front of the building.
- Mr. Mordecki discovered that the front window had been smashed, the front office area was in disarray, and an employee's desk and a cash box had been rifled through, though nothing was taken.
- Security footage of the incident revealed the suspect was a male wearing light shoes, dark pants, and a dark jacket over a light hoodie.
- While searching nearby, Officer Justin Nichols observed Franklin D. Begaye, who matched the description of the individual in the security video.
- Officer Nichols noticed what appeared to be shards of glass on Begaye's jacket and that his pants and shoes were muddy.
- A search of Begaye's person revealed a pair of black mechanic's gloves and a small red flathead screwdriver in the front pocket of his pants.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of New Mexico charged Franklin D. Begaye in the District Court of San Juan County with non-residential burglary, breaking and entering, and possession of burglary tools.
- Following a jury trial, Begaye was convicted on all charges.
- Begaye (Defendant-Appellant) appealed his convictions to the Court of Appeals of the State of New Mexico, challenging the breaking and entering and possession of burglary tools convictions.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do convictions for both burglary and breaking andentering arising from a single unauthorized entry violate the prohibition against double jeopardy, and is evidence showing only possession of a screwdriver and gloves after a break-in sufficient to support a conviction for possession of burglary tools?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Hanisee
No. Convictions for both burglary and breaking and entering for a single act do not violate double jeopardy when the legislature intended separate punishments, as evidenced by each statute requiring proof of an element the other lacks. No, evidence is not sufficient to support a conviction for possession of burglary tools where the prosecution fails to present non-speculative proof that the tools were actually used or intended for use to facilitate entry. The court affirmed the double jeopardy holding but reversed the possession of burglary tools conviction. Reasoning (Double Jeopardy): The court applied the two-part Swafford test for double-description double jeopardy claims. Conceding the conduct was unitary, the court focused on legislative intent. Applying the modified Blockburger test, it determined that the burglary and breaking and entering statutes each require proof of a fact the other does not. Non-residential burglary requires an 'unauthorized entry... with the intent to commit any felony or theft therein.' Breaking and entering requires the unauthorized entry be obtained by specific means, such as 'by the breaking or dismantling of any part of the... structure.' The jury instructions reflected these distinct elements: the burglary charge required finding an 'intent to commit a theft when inside,' while the breaking and entering charge required finding the 'entry was obtained by the breaking of a window.' Therefore, one crime was not subsumed by the other, and the legislature intended to permit separate punishments. Reasoning (Sufficiency of Evidence): The court found the evidence for possession of burglary tools insufficient because it was based on speculation. Regarding the screwdriver, there was no evidence it was used or intended to be used for entry; video showed a larger object broke the window and there were no tool marks. Mere possession in a pocket post-crime is not enough. Regarding the gloves, the security footage was 'grainy, blurry, generally unclear, and inconclusive,' making it impossible for a rational juror to determine if Begaye was wearing them at the moment of entry without resorting to conjecture. The officer’s testimony was a general opinion not specific to the moment of entry, and the prosecutor's closing argument is not evidence. Convictions cannot be based on a series of unsupported inferences.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the application of the modified Blockburger test in New Mexico, clarifying that courts will find legislative intent for separate punishments where statutes for similar conduct, like burglary and breaking and entering, contain distinct legal elements. More significantly, the case raises the evidentiary standard for convictions of possessing burglary tools. It establishes that the prosecution must present concrete, non-speculative evidence directly linking the alleged tools to the facilitation of entry, rather than relying on the defendant's mere possession of common items near a crime scene. This holding will make it more difficult for the state to secure such convictions based on ambiguous circumstantial evidence, thereby protecting defendants from verdicts based on 'mere guess or conjecture.'
