{
  "id": 5333963,
  "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oscar ROGERS, also known as Joe Baker, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Rogers",
  "decision_date": "1972-04-07",
  "docket_number": "No. 818",
  "first_page": "676",
  "last_page": "677",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "83 N.M. 676"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "496 P.2d 169"
    }
  ],
  "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": "161 Colo. 249",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Colo.",
      "case_ids": [
        4655368
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/colo/161/0249-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "77 N.M. 204",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2810199
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/77/0204-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 258,
    "char_count": 2977,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.644,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.8859653777953545e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7283293350307296
    },
    "sha256": "737809bb48919853d9fc8fb01fed8271a0bcd7d2a9298040ce19d30b1856eec2",
    "simhash": "1:ba7bf1aef12f4d49",
    "word_count": 481
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:09:20.437308+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "COWAN, and HERNANDEZ, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oscar ROGERS, also known as Joe Baker, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nSUTIN, Judge.\nRogers was charged, convicted and sentenced for burglary contrary to \u00a7 40A-16-3, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 6, Supp.1971). Rogers appeals.\nWe, reverse.\n\u25a0 Section 40A-16-3, supra, reads in part as follows: \u2022\nBurglary consists of the unauthorized entry of any * * * structure, * * * with the intent to commit any felony or theft therein.\nOn April 8, 1971, at 8:30 p. m., Rogers drove into Jim\u2019s Conoco Station in Hobbs, New Mexico, walked into the office and asked for a crescent wrench t.o use to take off a battery. The attendant told him that tools were not lent unless a dollar was deposited. Rogers did not have a dollar. The attendant went out of the office to service a customer and returned to the office. Rogers viewed the attendant opening the cash register. While the attendant serviced another car, Rogers remained in the office. Suddenly, the attendant ran inside. The cash register was open, all of the paper money, about $30 or $35, was gone. The attendant asked Rogers to put the money back, and Rogers said \u201cno.\u201d\nThe trial court instructed the jury that, the material allegations of the charge of burglary were:\n1. That the defendant, without authority, did enter a structure, to-wit: Jim\u2019s Conoco Station, Hobbs, New Mexico.\n' 2. That the defendant entered such-structure with the intent to commit a theft therein.\n3. That said act or acts were committed by the defendant knowingly, unlawfully \u25a0 and feloniously. .\n\u2022 This instruction became the law of this case. State v. Rayos, 77 N.M. 204, 420 P.2d 314 (1967). It should be noted that three essential ingredients exist. We are concerned only with the first.\nThere \"was no evidence that Rogers\u2019 entered the Conoco structure \u201cwithout authority.\u201d This was a business which invited the public to enter so that permission or consent of the owner is implied. Rogers\u2019 entry was authorized. The criminal offense committed thereafter was not burglary. A person who enters a store open to\u2019the public with intent to shoplift [\u00a7 40A-16-20, N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl.Vol. 6, Supp.1971)], or- commit larceny. [\u00a7 40A-16-1], is not guilty of burglary. Intent at the time of a permissible entry is not the sole element of burglary under the statute. People v. Carstensen, 161 Colo. 249, 420 P.2d 820 (1966).\nOur holding is limited to the charge of burglary and we do not decide whether the facts would sustain a conviction under another criminal charge.\nThe conviction, judgment and sentence ar\u00e9 reversed, and the cause remanded with' instructions to dismiss the charge against the defendant for -which he was convicted.\nIt is so ordered.\nCOWAN, and HERNANDEZ, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "SUTIN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "\u25a0 Harvey C. Markley, Lovington, for defendant-appellant.",
      "David L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., Thomas Patrick Whelan, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen. Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "496 P.2d 169\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oscar ROGERS, also known as Joe Baker, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 818.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nApril 7, 1972.\n\u25a0 Harvey C. Markley, Lovington, for defendant-appellant.\nDavid L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., Thomas Patrick Whelan, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen. Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0676-01",
  "first_page_order": 802,
  "last_page_order": 803
}