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 at a DWI roadblock after exhibiting signs of intoxication, including the presence of an open beer bottle in his vehicle, bloodshot eyes, the smell of alcohol, and poor performance on field sobriety tests. He later admitted to drinking and registered a 0.13 breath alcohol content on a breathalyzer test (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court, Doña Ana County: The Defendant was convicted of driving while intoxicated (DWI) under NMSA 1978, § 66-8-102(C)(1), (G) (2004) (amended 2005).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by (1) failing to suppress evidence due to the loss of a videotape of field sobriety tests, which prejudiced his right to a fair trial; (2) not excluding evidence due to the State's late disclosure of witnesses and documents, which hindered trial preparation; (3) admitting breathalyzer results despite the Defendant not being advised of his right to independent testing under NMSA 1978, § 66-8-109(B); and (4) allowing evidence obtained after the officer deviated from the roadblock script, resulting in an unlawful seizure under the Fourth Amendment (para 1).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the loss of the videotape did not prejudice the Defendant, as the officer did not rely on the second set of field sobriety tests. The State also argued that the late disclosure of evidence did not materially affect the trial outcome, that the Defendant was properly advised of his right to independent testing, and that the officer's deviation from the script did not render the roadblock unconstitutional (paras 9, 13, 19, 29).
Legal Issues
- Did the loss of the videotape of field sobriety tests violate the Defendant's due process rights?
- Did the late disclosure of witnesses and documents prejudice the Defendant's ability to prepare for trial?
- Was the Defendant properly advised of his right to an independent alcohol content test under NMSA 1978, § 66-8-109(B)?
- Did the officer's deviation from the roadblock script result in an unconstitutional seizure under the Fourth Amendment?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction for DWI (para 42).
Reasons
Per Sutin J. (Alarid and Fry JJ. concurring):
Lost Videotape: The court applied the three-part test from State v. Chouinard to determine whether the loss of evidence violated due process. It found no abuse of discretion by the district court, as the loss was unintentional, the officer did not rely on the second set of tests, and the Defendant had ample opportunity to cross-examine the officer and argue the significance of the lost tape to the jury. The evidence of guilt, including the 0.13 BAC reading, was strong and not materially affected by the missing videotape (paras 3-12).
Late Disclosure: The court held that the late disclosure of witnesses and documents did not prejudice the Defendant. The additional witnesses were either not called to testify or were disclosed in police reports months earlier. The Defendant failed to demonstrate that earlier disclosure of the breathalyzer certification and calibration logs would have changed the trial outcome or improved his defense (paras 13-19).
Right to Independent Testing: The court found that the officer substantially complied with NMSA 1978, § 66-8-109(B) by reading the standardized implied consent card, which included the right to an independent test. The district court reasonably concluded that the Defendant was properly advised (paras 20-23).
Deviation from Roadblock Script: The court rejected the argument that the officer's unscripted question, "Have you been drinking tonight?" rendered the roadblock unconstitutional. It emphasized that the deviation was minor, the intrusion was minimal, and the roadblock remained reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The court cautioned against broad officer discretion but declined to adopt a bright-line rule invalidating all deviations from a script (paras 24-41).