facts of this case, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, are legally sufficient to sustain a conviction for possession of burglary tools. Issues of statutory construction and interpretation are questions of law and are reviewed de novo. See State v. Herbstman, 1999-NMCA-014, ¶ 16, 126 N.M. 683, 974 P.2d 177; State v. Adam M., 1998-NMCA-014, ¶ 15, 124 N.M. 505, 953 P.2d 40. {25} As a preliminary note, Defendant urges us not to consider the State’s argument that Defendant’s use of a tool to gain entry into the office constituted a burglary because this argument was not made below. The State was not required to present every possible scenario under which Defendant might be found guilty of possession. Cf. State v. Crews, 110 N.M. 723, 736, 799 P.2d 592, 605 (Ct.App.1989) (<HOLDING>). In this case, Defendant was charged with, and
recognizing that evidence may be legally insufficient where there is variance between indictment allegations and proof holdingthat an error in instructing the jury that an offense could be committed by a statutory method not charged in the indictment is cured where  the court provides the jury with the indictment and instructs jurors that the burden of proof rests upon the state to prove every material allegation of the indictment and every essential element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt  citation omitted holding that variation between an indictment and proof to a jury is not material where the allegations and proof substantially correspond recognizing double jeopardy bar is inapplicable where a variance between indictment and proof necessitated prosecution under a new indictment holding that the district court correctly instructed the jury that there had to be a substantial similarity between the indictment and the proof in order to find the defendant guilty