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 stopped by police after failing to stop at a stop sign, weaving within his lane, and making an unusually wide turn. Upon being pulled over, the Defendant exhibited signs of intoxication, including bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and the smell of alcohol. He admitted to drinking earlier in the evening and performed poorly on field sobriety tests. A breath alcohol concentration (BAC) test conducted approximately 1.5 hours after driving showed a BAC of 0.09 (paras 2-5).
Procedural History
- Metropolitan Court: Convicted the Defendant of DWI (first offense) under NMSA 1978, Section 66-8-102(C), along with other charges, including running a stop sign and concealing identity (para 1).
- Second Judicial District Court: Affirmed the Defendant's conviction for DWI (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the DWI conviction because the BAC test was conducted 1.5 hours after driving, and no expert testimony or evidence was presented to relate the BAC test results back to the time of driving (para 10).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the evidence, including the BAC test results, the Defendant's behavior, and his poor performance on field sobriety tests, was sufficient to establish that the Defendant's BAC was at or above the legal limit at the time of driving (paras 9-17).
Legal Issues
- Was there sufficient evidence to establish that the Defendant's BAC was at or above the legal limit at the time of driving?
- Did the admission of testimony regarding the Defendant's performance on field sobriety tests constitute fundamental or plain error?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction for DWI (para 22).
Reasons
Per Bosson CJ (Pickard and Wechsler JJ. concurring):
The Court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding that the Defendant's BAC was at or above 0.08 at the time of driving. The BAC test results of 0.09, taken 1.5 hours after driving, were corroborated by the Defendant's admission of drinking three hours before driving, his erratic behavior, and his poor performance on field sobriety tests. The jury could reasonably infer that the Defendant's BAC at the time of driving was likely higher or at least not lower than the test results (paras 13-17).
The Court distinguished this case from State v. Baldwin, where a marginal BAC reading taken over two hours after driving lacked corroborating evidence. Here, the shorter delay and additional evidence of intoxication supported the conviction (paras 10-13).
Regarding the testimony on the one-leg stand test, the Court found no fundamental or plain error. The officer did not directly correlate the Defendant's performance to a specific BAC level, and the testimony was consistent with standard field sobriety training. Even if erroneous, the testimony did not undermine the fairness or integrity of the proceedings (paras 18-21).