State v. Contreras
New Mexico Court of Appeals
167 P.3d 966 (2007)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
Anthony Contreras (defendant) checked into a hotel while very intoxicated. He was assigned to room 125 and given a plastic key card, which did not indicate the room number. Shortly thereafter, the police responded to the hotel and discovered that Contreras had entered room 121 and thrown a large trash can through the window. A police officer who entered room 121 saw that nothing was damaged or broken and arrested Contreras as he was exiting the bathroom. Contreras’s key card for room 125 was found on the ground near the door to room 121. The State of New Mexico (plaintiff) charged Contreras with breaking and entering, and damage to property. At trial, Contreras presented no evidence and did not testify in his defense. At the close of the evidence, Contreras’s request for a jury instruction on mistake of fact was denied by the trial court. Contreras also requested an instruction on the elements of breaking and entering, namely proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he entered the hotel room without authority or permission by breaking a window and that he did not enter under a mistake of fact. The court denied Contreras’s motion. Instead, the court used the state’s general intent jury instruction. Contreras was convicted, and he appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Sutin, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.