AI Generated Opinion Summaries

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 a police officer for an unilluminated license plate. During the stop, the officer detected signs of intoxication, including the smell of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and the presence of an open beer can in the vehicle. The Defendant admitted to drinking earlier in the evening and failed two field sobriety tests. A breathalyzer test conducted one hour and six minutes after the arrest showed a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.08 (paras 2-5, 9).

Procedural History

• Trial Court: The Defendant was convicted of per se DWI (driving with a BAC of 0.08 or more) and possession of an open container. The trial court denied the Defendant's motion for a directed verdict, which argued that the State failed to provide retrograde extrapolation evidence to relate the BAC test results to the time of driving (paras 6, 10-11).
• State v. Day, 2006-NMCA-124: The Court of Appeals reversed the per se DWI conviction, holding that the State failed to prove a nexus between the BAC test result and the Defendant's BAC at the time of driving due to the lack of retrograde extrapolation evidence (paras 1, 12-13).

Parties' Submissions

• State: Argued that the Defendant's BAC test result of 0.08, taken within a reasonable time after driving, was sufficient evidence to support the per se DWI conviction without requiring retrograde extrapolation evidence (paras 14, 27).
• Defendant: Contended that the State failed to prove the required nexus between the BAC test result and the BAC at the time of driving, particularly in the absence of retrograde extrapolation evidence. The Defendant also argued that his BAC was likely lower at the time of driving than at the time of testing (paras 10, 12).

Legal Issues

• Was the Defendant's conviction for per se DWI supported by sufficient evidence, given the lack of retrograde extrapolation evidence?
• Did the Court of Appeals err in requiring the State to present retrograde extrapolation evidence in this case?

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and affirmed the Defendant's conviction for per se DWI (para 33).

Reasons

Per Serna J. (Chávez CJ., Maes, Bosson JJ., and Ransom J. (Pro Tem) concurring):

• The Court held that the Defendant's conviction for per se DWI was supported by substantial evidence, even without retrograde extrapolation evidence. The jury could reasonably infer from the evidence, including the BAC test result, the Defendant's admission of drinking, and his failed field sobriety tests, that his BAC was 0.08 or higher at the time of driving (paras 23-25).
• The Court emphasized that the jury was not bound by the testimony of the Defendant's expert, Dr. Reyes, who opined that the Defendant was in the absorption phase at the time of driving. The jury could instead infer that the Defendant's BAC had peaked earlier and was in the elimination phase at the time of testing, making his BAC at the time of driving higher than 0.08 (paras 24-25).
• The Court noted that corroborating behavioral evidence, such as the Defendant's slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and failed sobriety tests, supported the jury's conclusion (para 25).
• The Court acknowledged a 2007 legislative amendment to the per se DWI statute, which allows BAC test results taken within three hours of driving to be used as evidence of a per se violation. However, the Court clarified that retrograde extrapolation evidence may still be necessary in certain cases, such as when the BAC test result is below 0.08 or taken after three hours (paras 27-31).
• The Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals to address the Defendant's claim regarding the six-month rule, as it was not briefed before the Supreme Court (para 33).