{
  "id": 1586399,
  "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mardur RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Rodriguez",
  "decision_date": "1984-04-03",
  "docket_number": "No. 7494",
  "first_page": "192",
  "last_page": "194",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "101 N.M. 192"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "679 P.2d 1290"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.M. Ct. App.",
    "id": 9025,
    "name": "Court of Appeals of New Mexico"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 52,
    "name_long": "New Mexico",
    "name": "N.M."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "179 Colo. 159",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Colo.",
      "case_ids": [
        4646215
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/colo/179/0159-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "324 N.W.2d 287",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        10674151
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nw2d/324/0287-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "72 P. 1021",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "year": 1903,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "32 Wash. 129",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Wash.",
      "case_ids": [
        2451819
      ],
      "year": 1903,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/wash/32/0129-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "75 Nev. 526",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Nev.",
      "case_ids": [
        4910082
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1959,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "529"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nev/75/0526-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "89 N.M. 221",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2862335
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/89/0221-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "369 N.E.2d 1376",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "12 Ill.Dec. 362",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. Dec.",
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "54 Ill.App.3d 517",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3398484
      ],
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/54/0517-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "376 So.2d 285",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "So. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        9591606
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/so2d/376/0285-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 N.M. 208",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2772333
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/85/0208-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "93 N.M. 546",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1568735
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/93/0546-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "100 U.Pa.L.Rev. 411",
      "category": "journals:journal",
      "reporter": "U. Pa. L. Rev.",
      "year": 1951,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "92 N.M. 166",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1557241
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/92/0166-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 399,
    "char_count": 4843,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.779,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.22159139489945e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8671486252673418
    },
    "sha256": "67322429a8a337ced6db6c30f0d1b816df818ce905b3470487af8ff746496b6b",
    "simhash": "1:fbd77f227823e217",
    "word_count": 794
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:42:52.435207+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "DONNELLY, C.J., and ALARID, J., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mardur RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nBIVINS, Judge.\nPursuant to NMSA 1978, \u00a7 39-3-3(B)(l) the State appeals from a district court order dismissing a charge of burglary against defendant. The sole issue on appeal is whether reaching into the bed of a pickup truck with the intent to commit a felony may constitute a burglary within the meaning of NMSA 1978, \u00a7 30-16-3.\nThe record indicates that the State charged defendant with burglary and larceny after the victim saw him taking a tool box from the bed of her pickup truck. The parties appear to agree that the tool box was lying in an open and uncovered area of the truck.\nBurglary as defined by our New Mexico statute makes a radical departure from its common law predecessor. The crime of common law burglary consisted of six specific elements: (1) breaking and (2) entering (3) a dwelling house (4) of another (5) in the nighttime (6) with the intent to commit a felony therein. W. LaFave & A. Scott, Handbook on Criminal Law \u00a7 96 (1972). In contrast, the current New Mexico statute defines burglary as \u201cthe unauthorized entry of any vehicle; watercraft, aircraft, dwelling or other structure, movable or immovable, with the intent to commit any felony or theft therein.\u201d Section 30-16-3. Thus, only the common law requirements of entry and intent (with the modification to include non-felony theft) have survived in our statutory proscription.\nAt common law, burglary was \u201can offense against the security of habitation or occupancy.\u201d C. Torcia, 3 Wharton\u2019s Criminal Law \u00a7 326 (14th ed. 1980). This Court has described the statutory offense as one against \u201cthe security of the property which is entered.\u201d State v. Ortiz, 92 N.M. 166, 584 P.2d 1306 (Ct.App.1978). This change in definition reflects the legislature\u2019s expansion of the dwelling house requirement to include various movable and immovable structures. The rationale underlying the expansion, however, remains somewhat unclear. See generally Note, Statutory Burglary\u2014The Magic of Four Walls and a Roof, 100 U.Pa.L.Rev. 411 (1951).\nAs defendant has pointed out, this Court construes penal statutes strictly in favor of the accused. See Bokum Resources v. N.M. Water Quality Control Com\u2019n, 93 N.M. 546, 603 P.2d 285 (1979). In doing so, we follow established rules of statutory construction.\nA statute should be construed in light of the purpose for which it was enacted. State v. Trujillo, 85 N.M. 208, 510 P.2d 1079 (Ct.App.1973). The general purpose of burglary statutes is to protect possessory rights with respect to structures and conveyances, State v. Hankins, 376 So.2d 285 (Fla.App.1979), and to define \u201cprohibited space\u201d. See People v. Davis, 54 Ill.App.3d 517, 12 Ill.Dec. 362, 369 N.E.2d 1376 (1977).\nSection 30-16-3 expressly includes \u201cvehicles\u201d as a prohibited space. Since this Court must give words used in a statute their ordinary meaning unless the legislature indicates a different intent, State v. Tapia, 89 N.M. 221, 549 P.2d 636 (Ct.App.1976), we hold that the bed of a pickup truck, as a part of a vehicle, falls within the statutorily protected area.\nDefendant argues that this Court should follow the rationale set forth in Smith v. First Judicial District Court, 75 Nev. 526, 347 P.2d 526 (1959). There the Supreme Court of Nevada rejected the State\u2019s contention that \u201cto hold one\u2019s hand over the platform body of a truck with intent to commit larceny is the entry of a vehicle\u201d within the meaning of the Nevada burglary statute. Id. at 529, 347 P.2d 526. The Nevada court relied upon the case of State v. Petit, 32 Wash. 129, 72 P. 1021 (1903), in making its decision. Petit involved a Washington burglary statute which required breaking as well as entering to prove the crime. The Washington court, understandably, found it difficult to accept the idea that an individual could break and enter an open railroad flat car of wheat. Thus, the present case is distinguishable, and we decline to follow the precedent set by Petit, notwithstanding Smith, on the basis that our statute does not require a breaking.\nWe note that other jurisdictions have also concluded that the open portion of a pickup falls within the protected areas targeted by a state burglary statute, see, e.g., State v. Cloud, 324 N.W.2d 287 (S.D.1982); People v. Romero, 179 Colo. 159, 499 P.2d 604 (1972).\nThe district court\u2019s order dismissing the burglary charge in this case is reversed and the case remanded.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nDONNELLY, C.J., and ALARID, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BIVINS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Paul Bardacke, Atty. Gen., Barbara F. Green, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellant.",
      "Janet Clow, Chief Public Defender, Lynne Corr, Asst. Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, for defendant-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "679 P.2d 1290\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mardur RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellee.\nNo. 7494.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nApril 3, 1984.\nCertiorari Denied April 25, 1984.\nPaul Bardacke, Atty. Gen., Barbara F. Green, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellant.\nJanet Clow, Chief Public Defender, Lynne Corr, Asst. Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, for defendant-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0192-01",
  "first_page_order": 226,
  "last_page_order": 228
}