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 convicted of driving while intoxicated (DWI) after being stopped by an officer for erratic driving. Upon stopping the Defendant's vehicle, the officer detected the odor of alcohol, observed that the Defendant had bloodshot, watery eyes, and noted that the Defendant admitted to drinking. The Defendant also performed poorly on field sobriety tests and provided two blood alcohol concentration (BAC) samples of .07 (paras 3).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Briana H. Zamora, District Judge: Affirmed the Defendant's DWI conviction.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee: Argued that the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for DWI, citing observations of erratic driving, the smell of alcohol, the Defendant's admission to drinking, bloodshot and watery eyes, poor performance on field sobriety tests, and BAC samples (para 3).
• Defendant-Appellant: Contended that the evidence was insufficient for a DWI conviction and provided alternative explanations for the erratic driving and indications of impairment (para 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for DWI (para 2).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment affirming the Defendant's DWI conviction (para 5).

Reasons

• Per Jonathan B. Sutin, with Michael D. Bustamante and Roderick T. Kennedy concurring, the Court held that viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's DWI conviction. This conclusion was based on the Defendant's erratic driving, the smell of alcohol, the Defendant's admission to drinking, bloodshot and watery eyes, poor performance on field sobriety tests, and BAC samples. The Court also noted that the jury is free to reject the Defendant's alternative explanations for his behavior and indications of impairment (paras 2-4).