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 found unconscious behind the wheel of a vehicle with the engine running, the transmission in drive, and his foot on the brake. Earlier, a friend had driven the vehicle, parked it, removed the keys, and placed bricks under the tires before leaving to seek help. The Defendant was intoxicated, as evidenced by slurred speech, the smell of alcohol, and blood alcohol readings of .17 and .15. The issue arose as to whether the Defendant was in "actual physical control" of the vehicle under New Mexico's DWI statute (paras 2-6).
Procedural History
- Metropolitan Court: Found the Defendant guilty of DWI (para 7).
- District Court: On trial de novo, the court concluded that the Defendant was in "actual physical control" of the vehicle and upheld the DWI conviction (paras 7-8).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that he was not "driving" within the meaning of the DWI statute, as he was unconscious and had not moved the vehicle. He also contended that the State failed to prove intent to drive while intoxicated (paras 9-10, 16).
- Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Asserted that the Defendant was in "actual physical control" of the vehicle, which suffices for a DWI conviction under the statute. The State also argued that DWI is a strict liability offense, requiring no proof of intent (paras 8, 17-18).
Legal Issues
- Was the Defendant in "actual physical control" of the vehicle, thereby satisfying the statutory definition of "driving" under the DWI statute?
- Does New Mexico's DWI statute require proof of intent to convict?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction for DWI (para 23).
Reasons
Per Black J. (Pickard and Flores JJ. concurring):
- "Actual Physical Control": The Court held that the Defendant was in "actual physical control" of the vehicle, as he was found in the driver’s seat with the engine running, the transmission in drive, and his foot on the brake. The Court reasoned that this situation posed a potential danger to public safety, as the Defendant could have driven the vehicle at any moment before passing out (paras 9-15).
- Strict Liability: The Court determined that New Mexico's DWI statute is a strict liability offense, meaning no intent to drive while intoxicated is required. The statute's purpose is to protect public safety by deterring intoxicated individuals from being in control of vehicles, regardless of their intent. Allowing a defense based on lack of intent would undermine this purpose (paras 16-22).
- Legislative Intent: The Court emphasized that the legislature's omission of an intent requirement in the statute reflects its intent to impose strict liability for DWI offenses (paras 17-22).
The Court concluded that the evidence supported the Defendant's conviction and affirmed the lower court's decision (para 23).