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 convicted of driving while intoxicated, driving with a suspended or revoked license, and failure to maintain a traffic lane. During the traffic stop, the police officer testified that he observed the Defendant and his girlfriend switching seats in the vehicle, although the video evidence from the stop did not capture this event. The Defendant argued that his girlfriend was driving at the time of the stop.
Procedural History
- District Court, Doña Ana County: The Defendant was convicted of driving while intoxicated, driving with a suspended or revoked license, and failure to maintain a traffic lane.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Defendant): Argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions, asserting that the video evidence showed his girlfriend in the driver’s seat, which contradicted the officer’s testimony. Requested the appellate court to review the video and assess the officer’s credibility.
- Appellee (State): Maintained that the officer’s testimony, which stated he saw the Defendant and his girlfriend switching seats, was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that the Defendant was driving. Argued that the jury was responsible for resolving conflicts in the evidence and determining witness credibility.
Legal Issues
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the Defendant’s convictions for driving while intoxicated, driving with a suspended or revoked license, and failure to maintain a traffic lane?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant’s convictions.
Reasons
Per Bustamante J. (Wechsler and Robles JJ. concurring):
The Court held that in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, it must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, resolving all conflicts in favor of the prosecution. The officer’s testimony that he observed the Defendant switching seats with his girlfriend was sufficient for a reasonable juror to conclude that the Defendant was driving, even though the video evidence did not capture the seat-switching. The Court emphasized that it is the jury’s role to evaluate witness credibility and resolve factual inconsistencies. The Defendant’s request for the appellate court to re-weigh the evidence and assess the officer’s credibility was rejected, as this is not the function of an appellate court. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the convictions.