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 arrested for driving while intoxicated after failing field sobriety tests. At the detention center, he provided one breath sample with a BAC of 0.16 but allegedly refused to provide additional samples. The officer testified that the Defendant pretended to blow into the machine for subsequent tests, while the Defendant claimed he could not hear instructions due to a hearing impairment (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- Metropolitan Court: The Defendant was convicted of aggravated DWI based on both his BAC of 0.16 and his refusal to provide additional breath samples (para 3).
- District Court: The conviction was affirmed on the refusal basis but overturned on the BAC basis due to insufficient evidence to relate the BAC to the time of driving (para 5).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that (1) the trial court acquitted him of the refusal basis for aggravated DWI, and convicting him later violated double jeopardy; (2) the trial court misinterpreted the statutory provisions on refusal to submit to testing; and (3) it was fundamentally unfair to admit the breath sample into evidence while also convicting him of refusal (para 1).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the trial court's actions did not constitute an acquittal, the statutory provisions were correctly interpreted, and the Defendant's due process argument was insufficiently developed (paras 1, 6-7).
Legal Issues
- Did the trial court violate double jeopardy protections by convicting the Defendant of refusal after allegedly acquitting him of that charge?
- Did the trial court misinterpret the statutory provisions on refusal to submit to testing?
- Was it a violation of due process to admit the breath sample into evidence while convicting the Defendant of refusal?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction for aggravated DWI based on refusal to submit to testing (para 1).
Reasons
Per Fry J. (Alarid and Robinson JJ. concurring in result only):
Double Jeopardy: The court held that the trial court's oral and written statements did not constitute an acquittal of the refusal charge. Oral rulings are not binding or final under New Mexico law, and the written order was interlocutory, as it expressly contemplated further proceedings. The trial court's actions did not terminate jeopardy (paras 6-30).
Statutory Interpretation: The court found that the statutory and regulatory framework required two breath samples for proper testing. Providing only one sample constituted a refusal under the Implied Consent Act. The Defendant's actions, as found by the trial court, demonstrated an intentional refusal to comply with the testing requirements (paras 33-41).
Due Process: The court declined to address the due process argument, as it was insufficiently developed and lacked citation to legal authority (para 42).
The court concluded that the trial court's findings were supported by the evidence and affirmed the conviction (para 43).