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 found asleep at the wheel of a vehicle parked diagonally in a traffic lane. The vehicle's key was in the ignition in the "on" position, but the engine was not running. The Defendant admitted to driving the vehicle before it broke down. It was undisputed that the Defendant was intoxicated and that the vehicle was inoperable when the officer arrived (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: The Defendant was convicted of driving while intoxicated, first offense.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the inoperability of the vehicle negated the element of "driving" under the DWI statute. Cited out-of-state authority to support the claim that vehicle inoperability could be a defense. Additionally, argued that the use of the term "operate" in the newly enacted jury instruction for DWI suggested that operability of the vehicle should be considered (paras 3-4).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Asserted that under New Mexico law, motion of the vehicle is not required to establish "driving" for DWI purposes. Emphasized that the Defendant was in actual physical control of the vehicle, which satisfies the statutory requirements (paras 3-5).
Legal Issues
- Whether the inoperability of a vehicle negates the element of "driving" under New Mexico's DWI statute.
- Whether the use of the term "operate" in the new jury instruction for DWI alters the interpretation of "driving" under the statute.
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction for driving while intoxicated, first offense (para 6).
Reasons
Per Armijo J. (Donnelly and Bosson JJ. concurring):
The Court held that under New Mexico law, the motion of a vehicle is not required to establish "driving" for DWI purposes. The Defendant was found in actual physical control of the vehicle, which satisfies the statutory definition of "driving" or "operating" a motor vehicle. The Court rejected the Defendant's reliance on out-of-state authority, noting that New Mexico law does not require vehicle operability to establish control. The Court also clarified that the term "operate" in the new jury instruction is synonymous with "drive" and does not alter the statutory interpretation. The Defendant's vehicle, though inoperable, was stopped in a traffic lane, and the Defendant remained in control of it, fulfilling the statutory requirements for a DWI conviction (paras 3-6).