AI Generated Opinion Summaries

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 in the front seat of his truck with the door open. Upon being woken by an officer, the Defendant admitted to drinking "a little," exhibited signs of intoxication such as slurred speech and difficulty standing, and failed field sobriety tests. A blood alcohol test was conducted, but the State failed to establish proper foundational evidence for its admissibility (paras 3, 7, 10, 24-25).

Procedural History

• District Court, September 2001: The case was dismissed due to lack of probable cause in the complaint.
• Court of Appeals, December 27, 2001: Reversed the dismissal in an unpublished opinion.
• Supreme Court of New Mexico, 2003-NMSC-012: Affirmed the Court of Appeals' reversal, remanding the case to the district court.
• District Court, December 3, 2003: Directed a verdict of acquittal after the State failed to present evidence following the exclusion of the blood alcohol report (paras 24-26, 35-36).

Parties' Submissions

• State (Appellant): Argued that the exclusion of the blood alcohol report was erroneous and that it had a statutory right to appeal the exclusion under NMSA 1978, § 39-3-3(B)(2). Claimed the exclusion denied the State a fair opportunity to obtain a conviction (paras 4-5, 37).
• Defendant (Appellee): Contended that the exclusion of the blood alcohol report was proper due to the State's failure to establish foundational requirements. Argued that double jeopardy barred retrial after the directed verdict of acquittal (paras 7, 10, 13).

Legal Issues

• Did the State have a right to appeal the exclusion of the blood alcohol report under NMSA 1978, § 39-3-3(B)(2)?
• Does double jeopardy preclude the State from retrying the Defendant after a directed verdict of acquittal?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals dismissed the State's appeal, holding that the exclusion of the blood alcohol report was not appealable under NMSA 1978, § 39-3-3(B)(2), and that double jeopardy barred retrial (paras 20-21, 43).

Reasons

Per Robinson J. (Bustamante CJ and Fry J. concurring):

• Appealability of Exclusion: The Court held that the exclusion of the blood alcohol report did not eliminate the State's ability to prove the elements of the DWI charge, as other evidence, such as the officer's observations and field sobriety test results, was available. Thus, the exclusion did not meet the criteria for appeal under NMSA 1978, § 39-3-3(B)(2) (paras 5-7, 20).

• Double Jeopardy: The Court found that jeopardy attached when the jury was impaneled. The State's refusal to present evidence after the exclusion of the blood alcohol report resulted in a directed verdict of acquittal, which constitutes a resolution on the merits. Under double jeopardy principles, the Defendant cannot be retried (paras 10-15, 20).

Specially Concurring Opinion by Bustamante CJ:

• Bustamante CJ agreed with the result but disagreed with the majority's analysis. He argued that the State's certification under § 39-3-3(B)(2) should not be questioned for the first time on appeal. He also criticized the majority's interpretation of "trial error" under County of Los Alamos v. Tapia and its decision to address the evidentiary issue while holding the appeal was not permissible (paras 22-43).

Specially Concurring Opinion by Fry J.:

• Fry J. concurred with the result but fully agreed with Bustamante CJ's reasoning (para 44).