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 law enforcement after weaving into a bicycle lane and failing to stop when emergency equipment was engaged. The officer observed signs of intoxication, including bloodshot, watery eyes, slurred speech, a strong smell of alcohol, and poor performance on field sobriety tests. The Defendant admitted to drinking, and a breath-alcohol test (BAT) showed results above the statutory limit.
Procedural History
- District Court, Bernalillo County: The Defendant was convicted of driving while intoxicated (DWI), failure to maintain a lane, and no proof of insurance.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the officer did not meaningfully observe her for the required 20-minute deprivation period before administering the BAT, as the officer was occupied with another individual during part of the observation period. Additionally, the Defendant claimed that the delay of over an hour before the BAT was administered cast doubt on the reliability of the results. The Defendant also contended that the evidence was insufficient to support the DWI conviction, offering alternative explanations for her behavior and physical condition.
- Appellee (State): Asserted that the officer complied with the observation requirements, as the Defendant was in plain view and within sight and hearing throughout the deprivation period. The State also argued that the BAT results were admissible under the DWI statute, which allows for tests conducted within three hours of driving. Finally, the State maintained that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the DWI conviction.
Legal Issues
- Did the officer comply with the 20-minute observation requirement for the BAT?
- Was the delay before administering the BAT sufficient to cast doubt on its reliability?
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the Defendant’s DWI conviction?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant’s convictions.
Reasons
Per Sutin J. (Fry C.J. and Garcia J. concurring):
The Court found that the officer’s testimony established compliance with the 20-minute observation requirement. The officer testified that the Defendant was in plain view, within sight and hearing, and under continuous observation during the deprivation period, even while the officer was administering a test to another individual. This was sufficient to meet the legal standard.
The Court rejected the Defendant’s argument regarding the delay before the BAT, noting that the DWI statute permits the admission of BAT results taken within three hours of driving. The Defendant’s argument was also not properly preserved for appeal.
Regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, the Court emphasized that it views the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. The officer’s observations, the Defendant’s admission of drinking, her physical signs of intoxication, her poor performance on field sobriety tests, and the BAT results above the statutory limit collectively provided sufficient evidence to support the DWI conviction.
For these reasons, the Court affirmed the Defendant’s convictions.