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 officers investigating a domestic violence report. During the stop, the officers observed signs of intoxication, including slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and the smell of alcohol. The Defendant admitted to drinking but refused a breath test. He was charged with aggravated driving while intoxicated (DWI) and driving with a revoked or suspended license (paras 3-6).
Procedural History
- District Court, Bernalillo County: The Defendant was convicted of aggravated DWI in a jury trial and driving with a revoked or suspended license in a bench trial (para 2).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that (1) the prosecutor engaged in improper questioning by asking the Defendant to comment on the truthfulness of a police officer's testimony, (2) the trial court erred in admitting the Motor Vehicle Division (MVD) driving record due to its unreliability, and (3) the evidence was insufficient to support the aggravated DWI conviction (paras 12, 25, 31).
- State-Appellee: Conceded that some of the prosecutor's questioning was improper but argued that the error was harmless. It also contended that the MVD record was admissible and that sufficient evidence supported the DWI conviction (paras 13, 19, 25).
Legal Issues
- Was the prosecutor's questioning of the Defendant about the veracity of a police officer's testimony improper and prejudicial?
- Did the trial court err in admitting the MVD driving record into evidence?
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for aggravated DWI?
Disposition
- The conviction for aggravated DWI was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial (para 35).
- The conviction for driving with a revoked or suspended license was affirmed (para 35).
Reasons
Per Castillo J. (Sutin CJ. and Bustamante J. concurring):
Improper Questioning: The prosecutor's questioning violated the prohibition against asking a Defendant to comment on the truthfulness of another witness, particularly a law enforcement officer. This type of questioning is prejudicial as it undermines the jury's role in assessing credibility and distorts the burden of proof. The trial court's failure to sustain the Defendant's objection constituted reversible error. The State failed to prove that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, as the improper questioning could have influenced the jury's verdict (paras 13-24).
Admission of MVD Record: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the MVD driving record for the limited purpose of establishing the start date of the Defendant's license suspension. The record was deemed sufficiently reliable, and the Defendant's own admission that his license was revoked supported its admissibility (paras 25-30).
Sufficiency of Evidence: The evidence was sufficient to support the aggravated DWI charge. The officers observed signs of intoxication, and the Defendant refused a breath test, which the jury could infer as consciousness of guilt. The jury was entitled to reject the Defendant's explanations and rely on the officers' testimony (paras 31-34).