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 observed leaving a bar and exhibiting signs of intoxication, including staggering and impaired balance. Despite being warned by an officer not to drive, the Defendant drove a vehicle in reverse for approximately 60 feet into oncoming traffic on a dangerous street. Upon being stopped, the Defendant displayed further signs of intoxication, such as bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and poor performance on field sobriety tests. The Defendant admitted to consuming two beers but refused a breath alcohol test (paras 2-7).
Procedural History
- Metropolitan Court: The Defendant was convicted of DWI but acquitted of aggravated DWI. The court admitted scientific testimony correlating field sobriety test performance with a high probability of a BAC above the legal limit (paras 8-10).
- District Court: Affirmed the conviction, rejecting the Defendant's claims of insufficient evidence, improper admission of scientific testimony, and a violation of the 182-day trial rule (para 10).
- Court of Appeals, 2008-NMCA-133: Affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence was sufficient and the improper admission of scientific testimony was harmless error. A dissenting opinion argued the error was harmful and warranted a retrial (paras 11-12).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the DWI conviction, the admission of scientific testimony was improper and harmful, and the trial violated the 182-day rule (paras 10, 13, 19).
- State: Contended that the evidence was sufficient, the improperly admitted testimony was harmless, and the trial delay was justified by exceptional circumstances (paras 11, 19).
Legal Issues
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the Defendant’s DWI conviction?
- Was the improper admission of scientific testimony correlating field sobriety test performance with BAC harmful error requiring a new trial?
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the Defendant’s conviction and remanded the case for a new trial (para 27).
Reasons
Majority Opinion (Per Maes J., Chávez CJ., Serna J., and Daniels J. concurring):
Sufficiency of Evidence: The Court found sufficient evidence to support the conviction, including the Defendant’s admission of alcohol consumption, physical signs of intoxication, poor performance on field sobriety tests, and refusal to take a breath test. The jury was entitled to resolve credibility disputes in favor of the State’s witnesses (paras 14-17).
Harmless Error Analysis: The Court held that the improper admission of scientific testimony was not harmless. The testimony, which linked field sobriety test performance to a 90% probability of a BAC above the legal limit, likely influenced the jury’s verdict. The evidence was not minuscule, given its potential to distract the jury from properly weighing the evidence of impairment. Additionally, the conflicting testimony between the Defendant and the officers made the error prejudicial, as it undermined the Defendant’s credibility (paras 18-26).
Dissenting Opinion (Bosson J.):
Justice Bosson dissented, arguing that the evidentiary error was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of the Defendant’s guilt. He emphasized that the jury could assess the improper testimony in context and that the conviction was well-supported by other evidence. He would have affirmed the conviction (paras 29-32).