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 a police officer after being observed driving erratically, including running off the road by two to three feet while making a turn. Upon exiting the vehicle, the Defendant exhibited signs of intoxication and was arrested. A breath-alcohol test revealed results of .22 and .23, significantly above the legal limit of .08.
Procedural History
- District Court of Otero County: The Defendant was convicted by a jury of driving while intoxicated (DWI), fifth offense, and driving on a revoked license.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the breath-alcohol test results were improperly admitted because the State failed to comply with the required twenty-minute waiting period, citing concerns about continuous observation during transport. Additionally, the Defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the convictions, particularly the reliance on the breath-alcohol test results.
- Appellee (State): Contended that the breath-alcohol test results were properly admitted, as the officer complied with the twenty-minute waiting period by ensuring the Defendant did not eat, drink, or smoke during that time. The State also argued that sufficient evidence supported the convictions, including the officer's observations and the breath-alcohol test results.
Legal Issues
- Was the admission of the breath-alcohol test results proper under the applicable regulations?
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the Defendant’s convictions for DWI (fifth offense) and driving on a revoked license?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant’s convictions for DWI (fifth offense) and driving on a revoked license.
Reasons
Per Sutin CJ. (Robles and Vanzi JJ. concurring):
Evidentiary Challenge: The Court held that the admission of the breath-alcohol test results was proper. The applicable regulation (7.33.2.12(B)(1) NMAC) requires that the officer ascertain the subject has not eaten, drunk, or smoked for at least twenty minutes, rather than requiring continuous observation. The officer testified that the Defendant was under observation during the entire deprivation period and did not have anything in his mouth. The Court rejected the Defendant’s argument to reintroduce a continuous observation requirement, as this was inconsistent with the current regulation and prior case law.
Sufficiency of the Evidence: The Court found that sufficient evidence supported the DWI conviction, including the officer’s observations of the Defendant’s erratic driving, signs of intoxication, and the breath-alcohol test results of .22 and .23. The Court also noted that the Defendant did not contest his prior DWI convictions, which were relevant for sentencing. Regarding the conviction for driving on a revoked license, the Court concluded that the record contained sufficient evidence to support this charge as well.
Conclusion: The Court affirmed the district court’s judgment and sentence, finding no abuse of discretion in the admission of evidence and sufficient evidence to support the convictions.