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 convicted of driving while intoxicated (DWI) and obstructing traffic. The case arose from an incident where the Defendant's blood alcohol level was measured at 0.09 using an Intoxilyzer device. The Defendant challenged the reliability of the breath test, alleging contamination of the breath sample and questioning the accuracy of the Intoxilyzer machine.
Procedural History
- District Court, Bernalillo County, presided by Judge Carl J. Butkus: The Defendant was convicted of driving while intoxicated and obstructing traffic.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the DWI conviction. Specifically, the Defendant claimed that the breath sample was potentially contaminated due to conflicting testimony about whether a clean mouthpiece was used. Additionally, the Defendant contended that the Intoxilyzer's accuracy was not adequately established, as the arresting officer failed to testify about certain calibration and diagnostic checks.
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Asserted that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. The State argued that the officer's testimony regarding the Intoxilyzer's certification, calibration logs, and self-diagnostic checks was adequate to admit the breath test results. The State also emphasized that conflicts in evidence were resolved by the factfinder, who found the officer's testimony credible.
Legal Issues
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for driving while intoxicated?
- Was the breath test result properly admitted into evidence despite the Defendant's claims of contamination and inaccuracy?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's convictions for driving while intoxicated and obstructing traffic.
Reasons
Per Wechsler J. (Fry C.J. and Garcia J. concurring):
The Court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for DWI. The factfinder resolved the conflicting testimony regarding the use of a clean mouthpiece in favor of the arresting officer, and the Defendant failed to demonstrate that this finding was erroneous. The Court also concluded that the officer's testimony about the Intoxilyzer's certification, calibration logs, and self-diagnostic checks was sufficient to establish the reliability of the breath test results. The breath test, which showed a blood alcohol level of 0.09, was properly admitted into evidence. The Court noted that the Defendant did not specifically challenge the alternative basis for conviction under NMSA 1978, Section 66-8-102(A) (2008), and deemed the issue abandoned.