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 a police officer after making an illegal turn across the median on Interstate 40. The officer detected a moderate odor of beer on the Defendant's breath, and the Defendant admitted to consuming a few beers within the past hour. The Defendant failed three field sobriety tests, and a blood alcohol test administered over two hours after the stop showed a BAC of 0.08 (paras 3-5).
Procedural History
- District Court: The Defendant was convicted of DWI under Section 66-8-102(C) and driving illegally on a divided highway under Section 66-7-319. The court directed a verdict in favor of the Defendant on the DWI charge under Section 66-8-102(A) (paras 5-6).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the State failed to establish a nexus between the BAC test result taken over two hours after driving and the Defendant's BAC at the time of driving. The Defendant also challenged the sufficiency of evidence for the divided highway conviction and the admissibility of the HGN test results (paras 6, 28, 31).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the evidence, including the BAC test result and field sobriety tests, was sufficient to support the DWI conviction under Section 66-8-102(C) and the divided highway conviction (paras 6, 25).
Legal Issues
- Was there sufficient evidence to establish a nexus between the Defendant's BAC at the time of driving and the BAC test result taken over two hours later under Section 66-8-102(C)?
- Was the Defendant's conviction for driving on a divided highway under Section 66-7-319 supported by substantial evidence?
- Was the admission of the HGN test results proper?
Disposition
- The conviction for DWI under Section 66-8-102(C) was reversed (para 24).
- The conviction for driving on a divided highway under Section 66-7-319 was affirmed (para 33).
Reasons
Per Bosson CJ (Armijo and Fry JJ. concurring):
DWI Conviction under Section 66-8-102(C): The court held that a BAC test result taken over two hours after driving, showing a marginal reading of 0.08, required corroborating evidence to establish a nexus to the time of driving. The State failed to provide sufficient corroborating evidence, such as expert testimony or significant incriminating behavior, to support the jury's inference of the Defendant's BAC at the time of driving. Without such evidence, the conviction lacked substantial evidence and was reversed (paras 2, 7-24).
Divided Highway Conviction under Section 66-7-319: The court found that the officer's testimony, which established that the Defendant crossed the median at a location not authorized as a crossover, provided substantial evidence to support the conviction. The jury instruction, which became the law of the case, did not include the Defendant's interpretation of the statute, and the evidence met the instruction's requirements (paras 25-30).
HGN Test Results: The court declined to address the admissibility of the HGN test results, as the DWI conviction under Section 66-8-102(C) was reversed on other grounds, and the directed verdict on the Section 66-8-102(A) charge rendered the issue moot (paras 31-32).