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 involved in a car accident while making a left-hand turn, during which another vehicle struck her car. The responding officer, unable to initially determine who was driving, administered a horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test after detecting the smell of alcohol on the Defendant. The Defendant failed the HGN test, was arrested, and later underwent a breathalyzer test at the station, which registered a blood alcohol content (BAC) of .16. A second test was aborted due to a mouth alcohol warning, but subsequent tests also registered .16 (paras 3-4).
Procedural History
- District Court of Chaves County: The Defendant was convicted of aggravated driving while intoxicated (DWI).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the breathalyzer test results were inadmissible due to non-compliance with the required observation period, the HGN test results were improperly admitted due to flawed administration, and the aggravated DWI charge should be dismissed because the BAC reading of .16 was taken more than 90 minutes after driving, making it unreliable for proving aggravated DWI (paras 2, 11).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Conceded that the evidence was insufficient to support the aggravated DWI charge but argued that the breathalyzer and HGN test results were admissible, with any procedural deficiencies affecting the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility (paras 2, 8-9, 16).
Legal Issues
- Whether the breathalyzer test results were admissible despite alleged non-compliance with the required observation period.
- Whether the HGN test results were admissible given the officer's flawed administration of the test.
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the aggravated DWI charge (paras 2, 11).
Disposition
- The conviction for aggravated DWI was vacated and remanded for entry of judgment for simple DWI.
- The Defendant's other convictions were affirmed (para 20).
Reasons
Per Pickard J. (Donnelly J. concurring):
Breathalyzer Test Results: The court held that the first 20-minute observation period was satisfied, and the officer's testimony provided substantial evidence that the Defendant did not regurgitate or introduce foreign substances into her mouth or nose. The eight-minute wait before the second test was deemed sufficient, and any procedural shortcomings went to the weight, not the admissibility, of the evidence (paras 5-10).
HGN Test Results: The court acknowledged the officer's flawed administration of the HGN test but ruled that these deficiencies affected the weight, not the admissibility, of the evidence. The HGN evidence was treated as non-scientific expert testimony based on the officer's experience, and the prosecutor did not rely on it to establish a specific BAC level. Any error in admitting the HGN evidence was deemed harmless given the strong breathalyzer evidence and the Defendant's admission of drinking (paras 11-19).
Aggravated DWI Charge: The court agreed with the State's concession that the evidence was insufficient to prove the aggravated DWI charge, as the BAC reading of .16 was taken more than 90 minutes after driving, and there was no evidence of the Defendant's BAC at the time of driving (para 2).
Per Hartz CJ. (concurring in part, dissenting in part):
Hartz CJ. concurred with the majority's decision to vacate the aggravated DWI conviction and affirm the simple DWI conviction but dissented on the admissibility of the HGN evidence. He argued that the officer's substantial deviations from proper HGN test procedures rendered the results inadmissible, as the officer's personal experience lacked scientific validation (para 22).