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 law enforcement for suspected driving under the influence. A breath test was administered following the stop, and the Defendant was subsequently charged with violating NMSA 1978, Section 66-8-102(C) (2008) for driving under the influence. The Defendant contested the timing of the breath test and whether he was informed of his rights under the New Mexico Implied Consent Act.
Procedural History
- District Court, Doña Ana County: The Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that there was an hour-and-a-half delay between the stop and the administration of the breath test, which could affect the reliability of the test results. Additionally, the Defendant claimed he was not informed of his rights under the New Mexico Implied Consent Act.
- Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Contended that the delay between the stop and the breath test was only thirty minutes, as evidenced by a video of the stop. The State also argued that the Defendant was properly informed of his rights under the New Mexico Implied Consent Act.
Legal Issues
- Was the delay between the stop and the administration of the breath test sufficient to undermine the reliability of the test results?
- Was the Defendant properly informed of his rights under the New Mexico Implied Consent Act?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction for driving under the influence.
Reasons
Per Fry CJ. (Bustamante and Vanzi JJ. concurring):
The Court found that the Defendant failed to provide specific arguments or evidence to counter the reasoning in the Court's third calendar notice, which proposed affirming the conviction. The Court relied on the State's evidence, including the video of the stop, which demonstrated that the delay between the stop and the breath test was only thirty minutes and that the Defendant was informed of his rights under the New Mexico Implied Consent Act. The Defendant's failure to point out factual or legal errors in the Court's prior notices led to the affirmation of the conviction.