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 arrested and convicted for driving while intoxicated (DWI). The arresting officer testified that the Defendant admitted to drinking several alcoholic beverages in Santa Fe before driving home, during which his vehicle became stuck while taking a shortcut. The Defendant then walked home, consumed more alcohol, and later returned to retrieve his vehicle. At trial, the Defendant disputed the officer's account, claiming his statements were misrepresented.
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: Convicted the Defendant of driving while intoxicated (DWI).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the DWI conviction, specifically asserting that there was no evidence to establish when and how much alcohol he consumed or when he drove his vehicle.
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Maintained that the evidence, including the Defendant's admissions and the officer's testimony, was sufficient to prove that the Defendant was impaired while driving.
Legal Issues
- Was the evidence sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for driving while intoxicated?.
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals of New Mexico affirmed the Defendant's conviction for driving while intoxicated.
Reasons
Per Sutin CJ. (Wechsler and Vigil JJ. concurring):
The Court held that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for DWI. The arresting officer's testimony established that the Defendant admitted to drinking alcohol before driving and that his vehicle became stuck while taking a shortcut. The Court noted that the Defendant's subsequent actions—walking home, consuming more alcohol, and watching television—indicated impaired judgment and mental acuity, which are relevant to the DWI statute's purpose of preventing impaired driving. The Court emphasized that resolving conflicts in testimony, such as the Defendant's denial of the officer's account, is the role of the trier of fact. The Court concluded that the evidence, including the Defendant's own admissions, supported the finding that he was impaired while driving.