State v. Tixier, 89 N.M. 297, 298-99, 551 P.2d 987, 988-89 (Ct.App. 1976) (holding that a one-half-inch penetration with an instrument is enough to effectuate an entry; "[a]ny penetration, however slight, of the interior space is sufficient"). {8} This Court's opinions in Rodriguez and State v. Reynolds, 111 N.M. 263, 804 P.2d 1082 (Ct.App. 1990), define the limits of entry in the context of vehicle burglary. In Rodriguez, the defendant reached into the uncovered bed of a pickup truck and removed a toolbox with the intent of taking it unlawfully. 101 N.M. at 193, 679 P.2d at 1291.
{7} Defendant Muqqddin appealed to the New Mexico Court of Appeals, "arguing that puncturing the [g]as tank did not constitute an 'entry' under the burglary statute." The Court of Appeals analogized the facts presented to the facts of both State v. Rodriguez, 101 N.M. 192, 679 P.2d 1290 (Ct. App. 1984), and State v. Reynolds, 111 N.M. 263, 804 P.2d 1082 (Ct. App. 1990), involving an entry into the open bed of a pickup truck and the engine compartment of a vehicle respectively. State v. Muqqddin, 2010-NMCA-069, ¶ 8, 148 N.M. 845, 242 P.3d 412.
{7} Defendant Muqqddin appealed to the New Mexico Court of Appeals, “arguing that puncturing the [g]as tank did not constitute an ‘entry’ under the burglary statute.” The Court of Appeals analogized the facts presented to the facts of both State v. Rodriguez, 101 N.M. 192, 679 P.2d 1290 (Ct.App.1984), and State v. Reynolds, 111 N.M. 263, 804 P.2d 1082 (Ct.App.1990), involving an entry into the open bed of a pickup truck and the engine compartment of a vehicle respectively. State v. Muqqddin, 2010–NMCA–069, ¶ 8, 148 N.M. 845, 242 P.3d 412.
However, even assuming that the conduct in the current case implicates Rule 11-615, "the choice of remedy [for a violation of the rule] is within the sound discretion of the [district] court." State v. Reynolds , 1990-NMCA-122, ¶ 28, 111 N.M. 263, 804 P.2d 1082. {20} In Reynolds , the defendant alleged that one of the state's witnesses, who had already testified, discussed the trial with another of the state's witnesses, who had not yet testified.
Similarly, in State v. Reynolds, the Court noted that “[a]ny penetration, however slight, of the interior space is sufficient [to constitute entry].” 1990–NMCA–122, ¶ 37, 111 N.M. 263, 804 P.2d 1082 (second alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). However, neither of these cases was using the term to address the question presented here. Rather, both Sorrelhorse and Reynolds were concerned with the extent to which the defendant penetrated the prohibited space.
[MIO 2] However, we have no record before us to support any of these allegations. See State v. Reynolds, 111 N.M. 263, 267, 804 P.2d 1082, 1086 (Ct. App. 1990) ("Matters outside the record present no issue for review."); Santa Fe Exploration Co. v. Oil Conservation Comm'n, 114 N.M. 103, 108, 835 P.2d 819, 824 (1992) (stating that where a party fails to cite any portion of the record to support its factual allegations, the appellate court need not consider its argument on appeal). We therefore decline to address them.
In addition, there is nothing in the district court's decisions or in the record on appeal to support Father's contentions, and matters that are outside the record present no issue for review by this Court. See State v. Reynolds, 111 N.M. 263, 267, 804 P.2d 1082, 1086 (Ct. App. 1990). Father again claims that Mother received a payment for $938 that should have been credited toward his obligation for child support arrears.
{14} We have previously held that a district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied a motion for mistrial after questionable comments. See State v. Reynolds, 111 N.M. 263, 804 P.2d 1082 (Ct. App. 1990). In the opening arguments of Reynolds, the prosecutor asserted that the defendant had given the police a "cock-and-bull story."
{47} If the district court determines that a prosecutor’s comment or questioning of a witness "is substantially likely to cause a miscarriage of justice, the judge should grant a defendant’s motion for a mistrial." See State v. Reynolds , 1990-NMCA-122, ¶ 12, 111 N.M. 263, 804 P.2d 1082. However, when a defendant gives testimony "that ‘opens the door’ to inadmissible evidence, the doctrine of curative admissibility in some circumstances may permit the State to rebut that claim with otherwise inadmissible evidence."
First, although Respondent asserts that disciplinary counsel dismisses many more complaints than should be allowable under Rule 17-307(B), his assertion has no support in the record. See State v. Reynolds, 111 N.M. 263, 267, 804 P.2d 1082, 1086 (Ct.App. 1990) ("Matters outside the record present no issue for review."). Moreover, even when Rule 17-307(B) precludes disciplinary counsel from summarily dismissing a complaint, the Rules Governing Discipline still provide for a formal investigation procedure and the possibility of an informal disposition that may avoid the need for the filing of formal charges.