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 law enforcement after driving at night without headlights. Upon investigation, the Defendant exhibited signs of intoxication, including bloodshot, watery eyes, the smell of alcohol, and admitted to consuming alcohol. Field sobriety tests were administered, which the Defendant failed, and breath-alcohol tests showed results of .09 and .08. A subsequent blood test indicated a blood-alcohol concentration of .07, taken two hours after the stop.
Procedural History
- District Court, San Juan County: The Defendant was convicted of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs (DWI).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the DWI conviction, citing the blood test result of .07 and the lack of direct evidence, such as possession of car keys, to prove he was driving. Additionally, the Defendant contended that the admission of hearsay evidence violated his right to confrontation.
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Asserted that sufficient evidence supported the conviction, including the Defendant’s failed field sobriety tests, breath-alcohol test results, and behavioral indicators of intoxication. The Plaintiff also argued that any hearsay evidence admitted was harmless given the weight of other evidence.
Legal Issues
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the Defendant’s conviction for DWI?
- Did the admission of hearsay evidence violate the Defendant’s right to confrontation?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant’s conviction for DWI.
Reasons
Per Sutin J. (Bustamante and Vanzi JJ. concurring):
The Court held that substantial evidence supported the Defendant’s conviction for DWI. The jury was entitled to rely on the breath-alcohol test results of .09 and .08, as well as behavioral evidence, including the Defendant’s failed field sobriety tests, bloodshot eyes, the smell of alcohol, and his admission to drinking. The Court noted that the jury could reasonably discount the blood test result of .07, as it was taken two hours after the stop and may not accurately reflect the Defendant’s blood-alcohol level at the time of driving.
The Court rejected the Defendant’s argument regarding the lack of evidence of driving, finding that the officer’s testimony about observing the Defendant in the driver’s seat and the stop for driving without headlights provided sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that the Defendant had been driving.
Regarding the hearsay and confrontation issue, the Court found that the Defendant failed to preserve the issue for appeal by not objecting during trial. Even if the admission of hearsay evidence constituted error, the Court determined it was harmless given the overwhelming evidence supporting the conviction.