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 found in a parked truck with its engine running and lights on at 1:53 a.m. by a police officer. The Defendant admitted to trying to hide from the officer and showed signs of intoxication, including slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and the smell of alcohol. He failed three field sobriety tests and two breathalyzer tests, registering 0.16% and 0.14% blood alcohol content (paras 2-4).
Procedural History
- Metropolitan Court, December 30, 1997: The Defendant was convicted of Driving While Intoxicated (DWI), first offense, after a bench trial (para 1).
- District Court of Bernalillo County: The conviction was affirmed on appeal (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the breathalyzer test results were improperly admitted because (1) the State failed to demonstrate their scientific reliability, (2) the State did not provide evidence of proper calibration of the machine, and (3) the foundational requirements for admitting such evidence in criminal proceedings violated due process (para 8).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Asserted that the breathalyzer test results were admissible based on the officer's testimony regarding his experience, the machine's self-calibration, and its recent calibration log (paras 10-11).
Legal Issues
- Was the admission of the Defendant's breathalyzer test results proper under the foundational requirements for scientific evidence?
- Did the State provide sufficient evidence of the breathalyzer machine's calibration to admit the test results?
- Do the differing foundational requirements for breathalyzer evidence in criminal versus administrative proceedings violate due process?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction for DWI, first offense (para 18).
Reasons
Per M. Christina Armijo J. (Pickard CJ. and Bustamante J. concurring):
Scientific Reliability: The Defendant's argument regarding the scientific reliability of the breathalyzer tests was not preserved at trial and therefore was not reviewed on appeal (para 9).
Calibration Evidence: The Court found that the State met its burden of laying a proper foundation for the breathalyzer test results. Officer Chavez testified to his extensive experience with the Intoxilyzer 5000, the machine's self-calibration process, and its recent calibration within seven days of the test. This testimony satisfied the foundational requirements established in prior case law (paras 10-11).
Due Process and Foundational Disparity: The Court rejected the Defendant's due process argument, finding no inconsistency between the foundational requirements for criminal and administrative proceedings. The Court noted that administrative proceedings allow for less stringent evidentiary standards, such as the use of affidavits, which is appropriate given the differing stakes involved. The officer's live testimony in this case met the higher standard required for criminal trials (paras 12-17).