This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
On Christmas Eve, 1992, the Defendant drove the wrong way on Interstate 40, colliding head-on with another vehicle. The crash caused the death of four passengers, including a mother and her three daughters, and seriously injured the driver. The Defendant admitted to consuming seven and a half beers earlier that evening but claimed he became disoriented due to a migraine headache, leading to the wrong-way driving (paras 3-4).
Procedural History
- District Court, Taos County, June 1994: The Defendant was convicted of driving while intoxicated (DWI) but the jury deadlocked on charges of vehicular homicide and great bodily injury by vehicle, resulting in a mistrial (para 4).
- District Court, Taos County, November 1994: A second trial also resulted in a mistrial after the jury deadlocked on the same charges (para 5).
- District Court, Dona Ana County, May 1995: After a change of venue, the Defendant was convicted on all counts, including DWI, reckless driving, great bodily injury by vehicle, and four counts of vehicular homicide (para 6).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant: Argued that the second change of venue from Taos County to Dona Ana County was improper and violated his constitutional rights. He also challenged the admissibility of his blood alcohol test results and the enhancement of his sentence based on a prior DWI conviction (paras 1-2, 63, 65).
- State: Contended that the change of venue was necessary due to extensive pretrial publicity and local prejudice in Taos County, which made it impossible to empanel an impartial jury. The State also argued that the Defendant's blood alcohol test results were admissible and that the sentence enhancement was valid (paras 8-9, 63-64).
Legal Issues
- Was the district court's decision to change venue from Taos County to Dona Ana County an abuse of discretion?
- Were the Defendant's blood alcohol test results properly admitted into evidence?
- Was the enhancement of the Defendant's sentence based on a prior DWI conviction valid?
Disposition
- The Defendant's conviction for DWI from the first trial was affirmed (para 70).
- The remaining convictions from the third trial were reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial (para 70).
Reasons
The district court abused its discretion in granting the State's motion for a second change of venue without first attempting to select a jury in Taos County. The court failed to demonstrate that pretrial publicity and local prejudice in Taos County were so extreme as to make it impossible to empanel an impartial jury. The record lacked sufficient evidence to justify bypassing voir dire, and the court's reliance on speculative concerns about jury bias and the impact of prior mistrials was improper (paras 7-52).
The Defendant's blood alcohol test results were properly admitted because they were relevant to his defense of disorientation due to a migraine headache, and the privilege was waived by raising this defense. Additionally, the search warrant for subsequent blood tests was deemed adequate, and no prejudice resulted from their admission (paras 63-64).
The enhancement of the Defendant's sentence based on a prior DWI conviction was valid. The court found that the Defendant had knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to counsel in the prior case, and his guilty plea was similarly valid despite not being informed of all collateral consequences (paras 65-69).