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 in Thoreau, New Mexico, on February 13, 2001, for allegedly speeding and driving in the center of the road during snowy conditions. After failing two field sobriety tests, the Defendant was arrested and taken to a detention center, where breath alcohol tests showed results of 0.17 and 0.16. The Defendant was charged with per se aggravated driving while intoxicated (DWI) under New Mexico law (paras 2, 6, 14).
Procedural History
- Magistrate Court: Convicted the Defendant of per se aggravated DWI (para 1).
- District Court: Affirmed the magistrate court's judgment, finding the Defendant guilty of per se aggravated DWI (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that (1) the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop her vehicle, (2) the breath alcohol test results were improperly admitted, and (3) the breath test results, taken nearly 90 minutes after the stop, did not sufficiently establish a BAC of 0.16 or higher at the time of driving (para 1).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the officer had reasonable suspicion for the stop, the breath test results were admissible, and the evidence supported the aggravated DWI conviction. The State also argued that the Defendant's appeal was untimely and that the court lacked jurisdiction due to an alleged guilty plea in magistrate court (paras 3-4).
Legal Issues
- Did the officer have reasonable suspicion to stop the Defendant's vehicle?
- Were the breath alcohol test results properly admitted into evidence?
- Was there sufficient evidence to establish that the Defendant's BAC was 0.16 or higher at the time of driving to support a conviction for per se aggravated DWI?
- Should the case be remanded for entry of judgment on the lesser included offense of simple DWI?
Disposition
- The Court affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress evidence, finding that the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop the Defendant's vehicle.
- The Court reversed the conviction for per se aggravated DWI due to insufficient evidence of a nexus between the BAC results and the time of driving.
- The Court remanded the case for entry of judgment and sentencing on the lesser included offense of simple DWI (paras 31-32).
Reasons
Per Castillo J. (Fry and Robinson JJ. concurring):
Reasonable Suspicion: The Court found that the officer's observations, including the Defendant's speed and driving in the center of the road during snowy conditions, provided reasonable suspicion for the stop. The district court was entitled to credit the officer's testimony over the Defendant's (paras 5-7).
Breath Test Results: The Court held that the BAC results, taken one hour and 22 minutes after the stop, required additional corroborating evidence to establish a nexus to the Defendant's BAC at the time of driving. The marginal BAC results (0.17 and 0.16) and the lack of expert testimony or sufficient behavioral evidence to support a BAC of 0.16 or higher at the time of driving rendered the evidence insufficient for a conviction of per se aggravated DWI (paras 8-19).
Lesser Included Offense: The Court determined that simple DWI is a lesser included offense of aggravated DWI under the "strict elements" test. The behavioral evidence, including the Defendant's slurred speech, odor of alcohol, admission of drinking, and failure of field sobriety tests, was sufficient to support a conviction for simple DWI under Section 66-8-102(A) (paras 20-24).
Remand: The Court concluded that remanding for entry of judgment on the lesser included offense of simple DWI was appropriate, as the Defendant had notice of the lesser charge and had presented a defense to the behavioral evidence (paras 25-29).
Special Concurrence by Robinson J.:
- Judge Robinson agreed with the result but expressed concerns about relying solely on behavioral evidence for a DWI conviction. He emphasized the importance of BAC evidence for consistency and objectivity in DWI cases. While agreeing to affirm the simple DWI conviction, he would have relied on the BAC results in conjunction with the behavioral evidence to support the conviction (paras 33-48).