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 bar altercation in Farmington, New Mexico, after consuming alcohol. She fled the scene in her vehicle, allegedly to escape harm, and was stopped by police shortly after. The Defendant admitted to drinking and driving, failed field sobriety tests, and registered a blood-alcohol content (BAC) of .12 on a breath-alcohol test (BAT). She was charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI) and aggravated assault on a peace officer, but was acquitted of the latter charge (paras 3-6).
Procedural History
- District Court of San Juan County: The Defendant was convicted of DWI but acquitted of aggravated assault on a peace officer (para 6).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the BAT results were inadmissible due to lack of proper foundation, the prosecutor improperly commented on her duress defense during closing arguments, and officers who destroyed their handwritten notes should not have been allowed to testify (para 7).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the Defendant failed to preserve her argument regarding the BAT machine’s certification, that the BAT results were reliable, and that any error in admitting the results was harmless (para 8).
Legal Issues
- Was the admission of the BAT results without proper foundation an error?
- Did the prosecutor’s comments during closing arguments misstate the law on the duress defense?
- Was the admission of testimony from officers who destroyed their handwritten notes improper?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the Defendant’s DWI conviction and remanded the case for a new trial (para 2).
Reasons
Per Sutin J. (Fry CJ. and Kennedy J. concurring):
Admissibility of BAT Results:
The Court found that the State failed to establish the foundational requirement of demonstrating that the breath test machine was certified by the Scientific Laboratory Division (SLD) at the time of the test. Certification is a condition precedent for the admissibility of BAT results, and the State did not present evidence of the machine’s certification. The admission of the BAT results was therefore erroneous (paras 11-14).
Harmless Error Analysis:
The Court concluded that the improper admission of the BAT results was not harmless. The BAT results were the only scientific evidence presented, and their admission likely influenced the jury’s verdict. The remaining evidence, while sufficient to support a conviction, was not so overwhelming as to render the error harmless (paras 16-20).
Prosecutorial Misconduct:
The prosecutor misstated the law by suggesting that the Defendant’s duress defense required her to admit to being impaired. The Court clarified that a Defendant asserting duress need not admit to all elements of the offense, including impairment, and that the prosecutor’s statement was incorrect. However, the Court did not determine whether this misstatement alone constituted reversible error, as the case was already being remanded (paras 26-32).
Destruction of Officers’ Notes:
The Court declined to address the issue of officers destroying their handwritten notes, as the case was reversed and remanded on other grounds (para 7).
Pretrial Objections:
The Court held that the Defendant was not required to challenge the admissibility of the BAT results in a pretrial motion. The State bore the burden of establishing the foundation for the evidence, and the Defendant’s objections during trial were sufficient (paras 22-25).
The Court reversed the DWI conviction and remanded the case for a new trial (para 33).