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 or asleep at the wheel of his car, which was parked in the front yard of his house with the engine racing. The officer who arrived at the scene did not conduct field sobriety tests because the Defendant was too incapacitated to stand. Breath alcohol tests were incomplete due to insufficient samples but indicated high readings of .24 and .27, which were likely lower than the actual alcohol level due to the insufficient samples (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court, Bernalillo County: The Defendant was convicted of aggravated driving while intoxicated contrary to NMSA 1978, Sections 66-8-102(A) & (D)(1) (Repl. Pamp. 1994).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction because (a) there was no proof he was driving, as his wife testified he liked to sit in the car and listen to the radio, and (b) the evidence of intoxication was invalid due to the lack of field sobriety tests, insufficient breath samples, and failure to observe him continuously for the required twenty minutes (paras 3-4). Additionally, he contended that the jury's exposure to the televised O.J. Simpson verdict during deliberations constituted extraneous prejudicial information, warranting a new trial (para 6).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Asserted that the evidence was sufficient to prove the Defendant was in actual physical control of the vehicle and intoxicated. The officer's testimony explained the lack of field sobriety tests and supported the validity of the breath test results despite the insufficient samples. The State also argued that the jury's exposure to the Simpson verdict was unrelated to the case and did not create a presumption of prejudice (paras 5, 11).
Legal Issues
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for aggravated driving while intoxicated?
- Did the jury's exposure to the televised O.J. Simpson verdict during deliberations constitute extraneous prejudicial information requiring a new trial?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals of New Mexico affirmed the Defendant's conviction (para 13).
Reasons
Per Pickard J. (Alarid and Bustamante JJ. concurring):
On the sufficiency of evidence, the Court held that the evidence supported the conviction. The Defendant was found in actual physical control of the vehicle, as defined in prior case law, and the officer's testimony explained the lack of field sobriety tests due to the Defendant's incapacitation. The breath test results, though incomplete, were valid and likely understated the Defendant's alcohol level. The Court emphasized that it could not reweigh evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the jury (paras 3-5).
On the issue of extraneous prejudicial information, the Court determined that the jury's exposure to the O.J. Simpson verdict did not create a presumption of prejudice. The Simpson case was unrelated to the Defendant's case, and the jury's exposure to unrelated news or entertainment during deliberations does not violate court instructions or create grounds for a new trial. The Court found the Defendant's argument speculative and agreed with the State that unrelated external information does not automatically prejudice a jury (paras 6-12).