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 arrested and charged with aggravated driving under the influence of alcohol (DWI) after intoxilyzer tests showed blood alcohol concentration (BAC) readings of .17, .17, and .17. The Defendant argued that the statutory language regarding BAC levels was ambiguous and that his readings did not meet the legal threshold for DWI (paras 1-2, 5).
Procedural History
- Lovington Municipal Court: The Defendant was convicted of DWI but acquitted of aggravated DWI (para 2).
- District Court of Lea County: On appeal, the district court convicted the Defendant of aggravated DWI (para 2).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant: Argued that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of any DWI charge and that the district court could not convict him of aggravated DWI because he had been acquitted of that charge in municipal court. Additionally, he contended that the statutory language regarding BAC levels was ambiguous and should be interpreted in his favor (paras 3, 5, 8).
- State: Did not respond to the proposed reversal of the aggravated DWI conviction but supported the remand for entry of a conviction and sentence for DWI (para 3).
Legal Issues
- Was there sufficient evidence to convict the Defendant of DWI or aggravated DWI?
- Did the district court violate the Defendant's double jeopardy rights by convicting him of aggravated DWI after he had been acquitted of that charge in municipal court?
- How should the statutory language regarding BAC levels be interpreted?
Disposition
- The Defendant's conviction for aggravated DWI was reversed (para 4).
- The case was remanded for entry of a conviction and sentence for DWI (para 10).
Reasons
Per Bustamante J. (Apodaca C.J. and Bosson J. concurring):
- The municipal court's conviction of the Defendant for the lesser included offense of DWI implied an acquittal of the greater charge of aggravated DWI. Under double jeopardy principles, the district court could not convict the Defendant of aggravated DWI after this acquittal (para 4).
- The Defendant's argument that the statutory language regarding BAC levels required a reading of "eight percent" rather than ".08" was rejected. The court interpreted the statute to mean that a BAC of .08 or higher, as measured by an intoxilyzer or blood test, constitutes a violation. This interpretation avoided the absurd result of allowing significantly higher BAC levels (paras 6-9).
- The court emphasized that its primary goal in statutory interpretation is to give effect to the legislature's intent, which was clearly to lower the allowable BAC threshold, not to increase it (para 8).