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 involved in a motor vehicle collision at an intersection in the early morning hours. A witness identified the Defendant as the driver of the vehicle that caused the collision. A subsequent blood test revealed the Defendant's blood alcohol concentration was 0.19 grams per hundred milliliters, exceeding the legal limit for aggravated driving while intoxicated (DWI).
Procedural History
- Metropolitan Court: Convicted the Defendant of aggravated DWI.
- District Court of Bernalillo County: Affirmed the Defendant's conviction for aggravated DWI.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction, particularly challenging the identification of the Defendant as the driver and the credibility of the witness testimony.
- Appellee (State): Asserted that the evidence, including the witness identification and the Defendant's blood alcohol concentration, was sufficient to support the conviction.
Legal Issues
- Was the evidence sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for aggravated DWI?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals of New Mexico affirmed the Defendant's conviction for aggravated DWI.
Reasons
Per Sutin J. (Fry C.J. and Wechsler J. concurring):
The Court applied a two-step process to review the sufficiency of the evidence. First, the evidence was viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict. Second, the Court determined whether a rational trier of fact could find that each element of the crime was established beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court found that the witness's identification of the Defendant as the driver, corroborated by the officer's testimony and the Defendant's blood alcohol concentration of 0.19, provided sufficient evidence to support the conviction. The Court emphasized that issues of credibility and conflicting evidence are for the factfinder to resolve, and the factfinder was entitled to reject the Defendant's testimony denying he was the driver.