This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Defendant was stopped by police after being observed weaving in traffic and running a red light. Upon being stopped, the Defendant exhibited signs of intoxication, including bloodshot and watery eyes, slurred speech, a strong odor of alcohol, and swaying while standing. The Defendant admitted to consuming four glasses of wine, failed to follow instructions during field sobriety tests, and recorded breath alcohol test results of 0.12.
Procedural History
- Metropolitan Court: Convicted the Defendant of driving while intoxicated (DWI).
- District Court: Affirmed the conviction.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that her right to an independent chemical test under NMSA 1978, Section 66-8-109(B) was violated because the Albuquerque Police Department's policy prevented a technician from TriCore Laboratory from performing the test. Additionally, the Defendant contended that the exclusion of expert testimony on the unreliability of breath alcohol and field sobriety tests denied her the right to present a defense. She also argued that the admission of field sobriety test evidence was improper and prejudicial (paras 11, 13-14, MIO 15-28).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Asserted that the Defendant was given a reasonable opportunity to obtain an independent chemical test, as required by law, and that the exclusion of expert testimony and admission of field sobriety test evidence were proper. The Plaintiff also argued that substantial evidence supported the conviction (paras 11, 13-14, MIO 5-8, 10).
Legal Issues
- Was the Defendant denied a reasonable opportunity to obtain an independent chemical test under NMSA 1978, Section 66-8-109(B)?
- Did the exclusion of expert testimony on the unreliability of breath alcohol and field sobriety tests violate the Defendant’s right to present a defense?
- Was the admission of evidence regarding the Defendant’s performance on field sobriety tests improper and prejudicial?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant’s conviction for driving while intoxicated.
Reasons
Per Castillo J. (Fry CJ. and Sutin J. concurring):
Independent Chemical Test: The Court held that the Defendant was not denied a reasonable opportunity to obtain an independent chemical test. The police allowed her to attempt to arrange the test, but she was unable to find someone to perform it. The Court noted that Section 66-8-109(B) does not guarantee the performance of an additional test but only a reasonable opportunity to arrange one. Furthermore, the Defendant failed to preserve her argument regarding the Albuquerque Police Department’s policy for appeal and did not demonstrate prejudice from the lack of an independent test, as substantial evidence of intoxication was presented at trial (paras 11, MIO 5-8, 10, 15-21).
Exclusion of Expert Testimony: The Court found no error in excluding expert testimony on the unreliability of breath alcohol and field sobriety tests. The breath alcohol test results were admitted solely to show the presence of alcohol, not its quantity, making the expert’s testimony on variability irrelevant. Similarly, the field sobriety tests were admitted as lay observations of the Defendant’s behavior, not as scientific evidence, rendering the expert testimony on their scientific validity irrelevant (paras 13, MIO 5-8, 10, 15-21).
Admission of Field Sobriety Test Evidence: The Court held that the admission of evidence regarding the Defendant’s performance on field sobriety tests was proper. The tests were admitted as lay observations of commonly observable signs of intoxication, not as scientific evidence. Even if the admission was erroneous, the error was harmless because the trial was before a judge, not a jury, and the judge did not rely on the field sobriety tests in her ruling. Substantial evidence, including the Defendant’s driving behavior, physical signs of intoxication, and breath alcohol test results, supported the conviction (paras 14, MIO 24-28).