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 police after driving erratically, including drifting out of his lane, driving in the wrong direction, and nearly causing a collision. After being apprehended, the Defendant was subjected to a blood draw, which revealed a blood alcohol concentration of .22. The Defendant later argued that he had refused the blood draw by requesting an attorney. Additionally, the Defendant was charged with aggravated fleeing, based on his actions during the police pursuit (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court, San Juan County: The Defendant was convicted of driving while intoxicated, aggravated fleeing a law enforcement officer, failure to maintain a traffic lane, and driving on the wrong side of the roadway. The court denied the Defendant's motion to suppress the blood draw results and his motion for a directed verdict on the charge of aggravated fleeing (headnotes, paras 6, 16, 20).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court judge's comments to the jury pool created an appearance of bias, constituting fundamental error. Contended that the blood draw results should have been excluded because his request for an attorney constituted a refusal, and the State failed to prove that the refusal was cured. Further argued that the State did not present sufficient evidence to prove that the police pursuit complied with the Law Enforcement Safe Pursuit Act (paras 7, 16, 20).
- State-Appellee: Asserted that the judge's comments did not amount to fundamental error and that the Defendant consented to the blood draw after being informed he had no right to an attorney under the Implied Consent Act. Argued that the police pursuit complied with the Pursuit Act and that the officer's testimony was sufficient to establish compliance (paras 10, 19, 23).
Legal Issues
- Did the district court judge's comments to the jury pool constitute fundamental error?
- Was the admission of the blood draw results erroneous due to a lack of valid consent?
- Did the State present sufficient evidence to prove that the police pursuit complied with the Law Enforcement Safe Pursuit Act?
Disposition
- The conviction for aggravated fleeing was reversed.
- The remaining convictions were affirmed (para 26).
Reasons
Per Sutin CJ. (Castillo and Vigil JJ. concurring):
Judge's Comments to the Jury Pool: The court found no fundamental error in the judge's comments. The Defendant failed to create an adequate record to demonstrate bias, and the comments were ambiguous, not clearly prejudicial. The evidence of guilt was strong, and the Defendant's innocence was not indisputable (paras 8-14).
Blood Draw Consent: The court upheld the district court's finding that the Defendant consented to the blood draw. The Defendant's request for an attorney did not constitute a refusal, and the officer's testimony supported the conclusion that the Defendant later consented. The evidence was sufficient to admit the blood draw results (paras 16-19).
Aggravated Fleeing and Pursuit Act Compliance: The court held that the State failed to prove that the Farmington Police Department's pursuit policy complied with the Law Enforcement Safe Pursuit Act. The officer's testimony did not address all statutory requirements, and the policy itself was not introduced as evidence. As a result, one element of the crime of aggravated fleeing was not established, and the conviction was reversed (paras 20-24).