The “Enclosure” Imperative Reaffirmed:
State v. Jones (2025) and the Non-Structural Portal

1. Introduction

In State v. Jones, the Supreme Court of New Mexico confronted a deceptively simple but far-reaching question: does an open-air, two-sided “portal” (a traditional New Mexican covered porch) constitute a “dwelling or other structure” for purposes of the aggravated burglary statute, NMSA 1978, § 30-16-4? The answer—“no”—vacated Joseph Matthew Gregory Jones’s aggravated-burglary and felony-murder convictions and, more importantly, crystallised a modern rule: only spaces that are capable of completely confining people or property qualify as burglary structures; partial or unenclosed attachments do not.

The decision revisits two decades of statutory-interpretation debate, clarifies confusion spawned by intermediary precedent, limits reliance on “imaginary planes,” and supplies concrete guidance on double-jeopardy and evidentiary questions likely to recur. Below is a structured commentary detailing every major aspect of the ruling and its implications.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• Primary Holding: A backyard portal with two fully open sides is not a “dwelling or other structure” under § 30-16-4; therefore Jones’s motion for directed verdict should have been granted.
• Consequences: Convictions for aggravated burglary and felony murder are vacated; the State may retry Jones on the same or lesser charges without violating double jeopardy because reversal was for trial error, not evidentiary insufficiency.
• Evidentiary Ruling: On remand, unrelated firearms, ammunition, and accessories seized two years after the homicide are irrelevant and, in any event, inadmissible because their prejudicial effect substantially outweighs any probative value (Rules 11-401, 11-403, 11-404(B) NMRA).

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

1. State v. Foulenfont (1995)
   Introduced the “walls-and-roof” criterion: the object must be able to “completely confine people and their property.” Distinguished fences from true structures.
2. State v. Office of Public Defender ex rel. Muqqddin (2012)
   Reoriented burglary toward privacy rather than mere property; rejected the “imaginary-plane” theory; required “some sort of enclosure” creating an objective expectation of privacy.
3. State v. Gonzales (2008)
   Had treated an open-air commercial porch as burglarisable. Jones explains Gonzales now has “little, if any, precedential value.”
4. Post-Muqqddin Decisions:
   Mestas (hotel clerk’s booth enclosed by counter & barrier); Holt (fingers behind window screen); Shelby (house under construction). Jones synthesises these but stresses they all featured full physical enclosure.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

3.2.1 Statutory Text & Ejusdem Generis

Section 30-16-4 lists vehicles, watercraft, aircraft, and dwellings, followed by “other structure.” Applying ejusdem generis, any “other structure” must share the key trait of the enumerated items— an ability to shut out the public by physical closure.

3.2.2 Physical-Structure Test Reaffirmed

“Unlike a fence, all of the enumerated objects… are capable of completely confining people and their property.” – Foulenfont

The Court maintains that test and clarifies that a two-sided porch fails: no doors, screens, shutters, or barriers exist to convert it into an enclosed space. Treating the invisible opening as a “plane” would revive the discredited theory rejected in Muqqddin.

3.2.3 Privacy vs. Architecture

The dissent had urged a “subjective expectation” focus. The majority counters that objective, structure-based notice is constitutionally essential; otherwise criminal liability would depend on unknowable personal feelings, conflicting with due-process clarity.

3.2.4 Rule of Lenity

Even if ambiguity lingered, the Court would construe § 30-16-4 narrowly. “Judicial enlargement of a criminal act… is at war with a fundamental concept… that crimes must be defined with appropriate definiteness” (Pierce v. United States quoted).

3.2.5 Double Jeopardy & Retrial

Reversal rests on legal error, not on sufficiency. Under State v. Revels (2025), retrial is permissible; the State may select a legally adequate predicate felony (e.g., simple burglary, aggravated battery, or trespass) to underpin any renewed felony-murder charge.

3.2.6 Evidentiary Guidance

• Relevance (Rule 11-401): No link between extra guns/ammo and the crime.
• Rule 11-403: Photographs and testimony risked unfair propensity prejudice.
• Rule 11-404(B): The State conceded non-applicability; Court agrees.

3.3 Likely Impact

1. Narrowing Burglary Prosecutions – Open carports, stoops, decks, and partially walled patios will generally fall outside § 30-16-3/-4 unless fitted with closing gates or screens.
2. Legislative Prompt – If policymakers wish to criminalise entry onto portals, they must amend the statute explicitly (e.g., add “any attached porch or portal”).
3. Evidentiary Caution – Prosecutors must tether weapon-possession evidence to the charged offence or risk reversal.
4. Property-Owner Awareness – Citizens should understand that fencing a yard does not transform an attached, unenclosed porch into a burglary-protected space.
5. Uniform Jury Instructions (UJI) – Trial courts cannot alter UJI 14-1631 to slot in non-statutory terms like “portal.”

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Aggravated Burglary: Unauthorized entry into a protected structure plus intent to commit a felony, coupled with either a weapon or assault.
• Felony Murder: Homicide occurring during the commission of a specified felony (here, aggravated burglary), even without intent to kill.
• Portal: In New-Mexican architecture, a covered porch or patio, often with two or more open sides.
• Imaginary Plane Theory: The notion that an invisible vertical plane extending from a structure’s edges marks burglary entry; rejected in New Mexico.
• Rule of Lenity: Ambiguous criminal statutes are construed in favour of the defendant.
• Ejusdem Generis: “Of the same kind” – a catch-all term is limited by specific items listed before it.
• Directed Verdict: A motion arguing that even if the jury believes all State evidence, the law does not sustain conviction.

5. Conclusion

State v. Jones re-anchors New Mexico burglary law to a clear, physically observable benchmark: without substantial enclosure, there is no burglary structure. By vacating convictions rooted in an unenclosed portal, the Court curtails prosecutorial overreach, protects constitutional notice principles, and provides a roadmap for future cases where architectural ambiguity collides with criminal liability. Simultaneously, it signals to the Legislature that expanding burglary coverage to semi-open spaces is a policy decision requiring statutory, not judicial, action. For trial courts, Jones is a cautionary tale on jury-instruction fidelity and propensity evidence; for property owners, a reminder that physical barriers— not mere perceptions of privacy—trigger the State’s heaviest burglary sanctions.