N.M. Stat. § 30-14-8 (2026)

A. Breaking and entering consists of the unauthorized entry of any vehicle,
watercraft, aircraft, dwelling or other structure, movable or immovable, where entry is
obtained by fraud or deception, or by the breaking or dismantling of any part of the
vehicle, watercraft, aircraft, dwelling or other structure, or by the breaking or dismantling
of any device used to secure the vehicle, watercraft, aircraft, dwelling or other structure.

   B. Whoever commits breaking and entering is guilty of a fourth degree felony.

History: Laws 1981, ch. 34, § 2.

                                     ANNOTATIONS

Sufficient evidence. — Where defendant attempted to force entry into an apartment
through the front door; the occupants of the apartment struggled to hold the door
closed; and defendant pushed the occupants back into the apartment about a foot and
stepped into the apartment, there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s
conviction of breaking and entering. State v. Sorrelhorse, 2011-NMCA-095, 150 N.M.
536, 263 P.3d 313, cert. denied, 2011-NMCERT-008, 268 P.3d 513.

Sufficient evidence of "unauthorized entry". — An "entry", for purposes of the
breaking and entering statute, occurs whenever there is an invasion into an enclosed,
private, prohibited space. To determine the boundaries of enclosures, the proper
question is whether the nature of a structure’s composition is such that a reasonable
person would expect some protection from unauthorized intrusions. State v. Holt, 2016-
NMSC-011, aff’g 2015-NMCA-073, 352 P.3d 702.

Where the evidence established that defendant placed his fingers behind a window
screen affixed to a residential dwelling and beyond the boundary created by the window
screen, defendant’s actions constituted an intrusion into an enclosed, private, prohibited
space and constituted an "entry" for the purposes of New Mexico’s breaking and
entering statute. There was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s conviction for
breaking and entering. State v. Holt, 2016-NMSC-011, aff’g 2015-NMCA-073, 352 P.3d
702.

Sufficient evidence of breaking and entering. — Where defendant was charged with
first-degree murder in the shooting death of two victims, tampering with evidence and
breaking and entering, there was sufficient evidence to support his conviction for
breaking and entering where the state presented a witness who testified that she saw
defendant break a car window and rummage around inside the car, and where
defendant acknowledged breaking into a vehicle, but claimed he entered the vehicle to
retrieve his own property from the vehicle. It is immaterial that defendant was breaking
in to retrieve his own property, because New Mexico’s breaking and entering statute
requires no intent to commit a crime upon entering, only the breaking and entering need
be shown. State v. Carrillo, 2017-NMSC-023.

Sufficient evidence to support breaking and entering conviction. — Where
defendant was charged with arson, breaking and entering and violating an order of
protection, and where the state presented evidence that defendant had broken into the
victim's house through her window on prior occasions, similar to the way the arsonist did
on the night of the fire, that defendant's blood was found on a pair of pliers and pruning
shears found near the victim's broken window on the night of the fire, tools which the
victim did not recognize or notice when she had her window secured earlier that
morning, and that defendant had a motive to burn the victim's house down, jealousy
following a breakup, there was sufficient evidence for a rational juror to find that
defendant broke into the victim's house and set it on fire. State v. Pamphille, 2021-
NMCA-002, cert. denied.

Intrusion into the space between a window screen and window is sufficient to
warrant a finding of an unauthorized entry for the purposes of the breaking and
entering statute. — Where defendant attempted to force entry into a home through a
window by removing the window screen from its track, and while holding the screen,
defendant’s fingers penetrated the area between the window and the screen, there was
sufficient evidence to support defendant’s conviction of breaking and entering because
the window screen was part of the enclosure around the home, and a reasonable
person would expect the window screen to afford some protection from unauthorized
intrusions. State v. Holt, 2015-NMCA-073, cert. granted, 2015-NMCERT-006.

Sufficient evidence of breaking and entering. — Where defendant was charged with
breaking and entering, attempt to commit breaking and entering, criminal trespass, and
resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer, and where, at trial the homeowner testified
that he locked his back door, front door, and bathroom window, and that when he
returned home, he found defendant asleep in the bathroom, the bathroom window wide
open, the window crank that opens the bathroom window broken, the window screen to
the window on the floor, and footprints outside the bathroom window, there was
sufficient evidence to permit a reasonable jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt
that defendant broke into the house through the bathroom window without permission.
State v. Ancira, 2022-NMCA-053, cert. denied.
Criminal damage to property was a lesser included offense of breaking and
entering. — Where defendant attempted to force entry into an apartment through the
front door; the occupants of the apartment struggled to hold the door closed; defendant
pushed the occupants back into the apartment about a foot and stepped into the
apartment; while one occupant of the apartment attempted to call 911, defendant
walked away; and when the other occupant opened the door to see which way
defendant had gone, defendant returned and began kicking the door, defendant’s initial
act of trying to force open the door of the apartment and then returning minutes later to
kick the door was unitary conduct and defendant’s conviction of criminal damage to
property, which was a lesser included offense of defendant’s conviction of breaking and
entering, violated defendant’s right to be free from double jeopardy. State v.
Sorrelhorse, 2011-NMCA-095, 150 N.M. 536, 263 P.3d 313, cert. denied, 2011-
NMCERT-008, 268 P.3d 513.

Not lesser included offense of aggravated burglary. — Breaking and entering is not
a lesser included offense of aggravated burglary because each offense requires an
element not included in the other and, by convicting defendant of breaking and entering
when he only had notice of an aggravated burglary, the trial court violated his right to
notice of the charges against him. State v. Hernandez, 1999-NMCA-105, 127 N.M. 769,
987 P.2d 1156, cert. denied, 128 N.M. 149, 990 P.2d 823.

Criminal trespass not a lesser included offense of breaking and entering. — Trial
court did not err in refusing to give lesser included-offense instructions on criminal
trespass and breaking and entering. State v. Andrade, 1998-NMCA-031, 124 N.M. 690,
954 P.2d 755, cert. denied, 124 N.M. 589, 953 P.2d 1087.

Mistake of fact instruction. — Where defendant was charged with breaking and
entering a motel room and the evidence showed that defendant checked into the motel
and was assigned room 125, subsequently defendant, who was very intoxicated, was
discovered in room 121, in the bathroom, the key card for room 125 was on the ground
outside near room 121, and the key card did not have a room number on it, defendant
was entitled to an instruction on the defense of mistake of fact. State v. Contreras,
2007-NMSC-119, 142 N.M. 518, 167 P.3d 966.

Instructions. — Even though Subsection A of this section uses the phrase
"unauthorized entry," while UJI 14-1410 uses the phrase "without permission," this
variation from the strict language of the statute does not, by itself, make the instruction
improper. State v. Rubio, 1999-NMCA-018, 126 N.M. 579, 973 P.2d 256.

Trial court's failure to instruct the jury on an "unauthorized entry" rather than an "entry
without permission" was not reversible error where the evidence overwhelmingly
supported the conclusion that defendant did not have blanket authority to enter the
apartment, or that whatever authority he may have had was freely revocable by the
renter. State v. Rubio, 1999-NMCA-018, 126 N.M. 579, 973 P.2d 256.
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — Burglary, breaking, or entering of motor
vehicle, 72 A.L.R.4th 710.