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 for driving while intoxicated and failing to maintain a traffic lane. After his arrest, he was denied access to a telephone for an extended period, which he argued prevented him from obtaining a blood-alcohol test that could have been used in his defense (paras 1, 5, and 9).
Procedural History
- District Court, Bernalillo County: The Defendant was convicted of driving while intoxicated and failure to maintain a traffic lane. The court found no violation of the Defendant's constitutional, statutory, or procedural rights and concluded that no prejudice resulted from the alleged violations (paras 1 and 6).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that his statutory right to make telephone calls was violated, which prejudiced his defense by preventing him from obtaining a blood-alcohol test. He also claimed violations of his constitutional right to counsel and his rights relating to release on bond (paras 1 and 11).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the Defendant was given a reasonable opportunity to make telephone calls and that no prejudice resulted from the alleged violations. The Plaintiff also argued that the Defendant failed to preserve certain issues for appeal (paras 2, 7, and 10).
Legal Issues
- Was the Defendant's statutory right to make telephone calls under Section 31-1-5(A) violated?
- Did the violation of the Defendant's statutory right to make telephone calls cause prejudice to his defense?
- Were the Defendant's constitutional and statutory rights relating to release on bond violated?
Disposition
- The conviction for failure to maintain a traffic lane was affirmed (para 2).
- The case was remanded to the district court for further findings on whether the violation of the Defendant's statutory right to make telephone calls caused prejudice to his defense. If no substantial threat of prejudice is found, the conviction for driving while intoxicated is affirmed; otherwise, it is reversed (paras 3 and 17).
Reasons
Per Hartz J. (Donnelly J. concurring):
The court found that the Defendant's statutory right to make telephone calls under Section 31-1-5(A) was violated because he was denied access to a telephone for an extended period, from 11:30 PM to 10:00 AM the next day. The statute requires a reasonable opportunity to make calls, and the state failed to provide a reasonable basis for the denial (paras 7-9).
However, the court held that a violation of Section 31-1-5(A) does not automatically require setting aside a conviction. Prejudice must be shown, and the Defendant must demonstrate at least a substantial threat of prejudice. The court noted that the rapid dissipation of blood-alcohol evidence could create a real possibility of prejudice in cases involving intoxication. The case was remanded for further findings on whether the Defendant suffered prejudice due to the violation (paras 10-15).
The court declined to address the Defendant's claims regarding release on bond, as any prejudice from those delays was tied to the denial of telephone access (para 16).
Per Apodaca J., dissenting:
Judge Apodaca disagreed with the majority's decision to remand the case. He argued that the district court's findings already established prejudice due to the Defendant's inability to obtain a blood test during a critical period. He emphasized that the rapid dissipation of alcohol in the Defendant's system deprived him of a key opportunity to refute the charges. In his view, the denial of access to a telephone was sufficient to warrant reversal of the conviction for driving while intoxicated (paras 19-21).