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 for having broken tail lamps and was subsequently charged with a fourth offense of driving while intoxicated (DWI). The Defendant entered a conditional plea of no contest, reserving the right to appeal the exclusion of expert testimony regarding the accuracy of the breathalyzer test used to measure his breath alcohol content.
Procedural History
- District Court of Otero County: Convicted the Defendant of broken tail lamps and fourth offense DWI, excluding the testimony of the Defendant’s expert witness, Dr. Reyes, on relevancy grounds.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the district court erred in excluding the testimony of Dr. Reyes, who would have testified that the breathalyzer machine’s use of a fixed breath alcohol ratio (2100:1) could result in an inflated breath score for individuals with a lower partition coefficient, potentially placing the Defendant’s breath alcohol content below the legal limit of 0.08.
- Appellee (State): Contended that the district court correctly excluded the expert testimony as irrelevant because the DUI statute and regulations require the use of the breathalyzer machine calibrated to the fixed ratio of 2100:1, and the Defendant did not argue that the machine was improperly calibrated or operated.
Legal Issues
- Did the district court err in excluding the expert testimony of Dr. Reyes regarding the potential inaccuracy of the breathalyzer test due to individual variations in the breath alcohol ratio?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision to exclude the expert testimony and upheld the Defendant’s conviction.
Reasons
Per Kennedy J. (Fry C.J. and Garcia J. concurring):
The Court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the expert testimony of Dr. Reyes. The Court emphasized that the admission or exclusion of evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion, with a de novo review of whether the correct evidentiary standard was applied. The DUI statute and regulations explicitly require the use of a breathalyzer machine calibrated to measure alcohol concentration based on a fixed ratio of 2100:1. The Defendant did not argue that the machine was improperly calibrated or operated, but rather that the statutory testing method could produce inaccurate results for individuals with a lower partition coefficient. The Court found this argument speculative and irrelevant under the governing legal standards, as it does not challenge the statutory requirements or the machine’s compliance with them. Accordingly, the exclusion of the testimony was upheld, and the Defendant’s conviction was affirmed.