AI Generated Opinion Summaries

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 a police officer for driving with a non-operational tail lamp. The officer detected a strong odor of alcohol and conducted field sobriety tests, which the Defendant performed poorly on despite claiming to have gout in his feet. The Defendant refused a breath test, and a blood test obtained via a search warrant revealed a blood alcohol content of .21 grams per 100 milliliters of blood (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court, Lincoln County: The Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence (fourth offense) and other motor vehicle violations under NMSA 1978, Section 66-8-102(C)(1).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the blood test results should be excluded because they were obtained more than two hours after arrest, violating Regulation 7.33.2.12(A)(2) NMAC. Additionally, the Defendant contended that testimony regarding his performance on field sobriety tests was invalid due to his medical condition (paras 1, 4, and 13).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Asserted that NMSA 1978, Section 66-8-110(E) supersedes the SLD regulation, allowing the admission of blood test results even if obtained more than two hours after arrest. The Plaintiff also argued that the field sobriety test testimony was admissible and its probative value was for the jury to determine (paras 1, 9, and 15).

Legal Issues

• Does NMSA 1978, Section 66-8-110(E) supersede Regulation 7.33.2.12(A)(2) NMAC, allowing the admission of blood test results obtained more than two hours after arrest?
• Was the district court correct in admitting testimony regarding the Defendant’s performance on field sobriety tests despite his medical condition?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant’s convictions (para 16).

Reasons

Per Wechsler J. (Bustamante and Vanzi JJ. concurring):

Blood Test Results: The Court held that NMSA 1978, Section 66-8-110(E) supersedes the SLD regulation. While the regulation requires blood samples to be collected within two hours of arrest to ensure accuracy, the statute permits the admission of test results obtained within three hours of driving, leaving the weight of such evidence to the trier of fact. The Court found a conflict between the statute and the regulation and applied the principle that statutes take precedence over inconsistent regulations (paras 4-12).

Field Sobriety Test Testimony: The Court determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony about the Defendant’s performance on field sobriety tests. Although the Defendant claimed his gout affected his performance, the evidence regarding the impact of his condition was inconclusive. The jury was entitled to assess the probative value of the testimony (paras 13-15).