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, Norma Candia, was convicted for a fourth offense DWI. The conviction was based, in part, on blood test results that were admitted into evidence. There was a six-month delay between the collection of the blood samples and their arrival at the Scientific Laboratory Division (SLD) for testing. The Defendant challenged the admissibility of these blood test results and the testimony of an SLD analyst as a lay witness.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Otero County, Angie K. Schneider, District Judge, convicting the Defendant for fourth offense DWI.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by admitting her blood test results due to an unexplained six-month delay between the blood draw and the samples arriving at SLD. Also contended that it was error to permit an SLD analyst to testify as a lay witness.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred by admitting blood test results under the SLD regulations despite a six-month delay between the blood draw and the samples arriving at SLD.
• Whether the district court erred by permitting an SLD analyst to testify as a lay witness.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment and sentence.

Reasons

• J. MILES HANISEE, Judge (JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge, HENRY M. BOHNHOFF, Judge concurring):
  The Court of Appeals issued a notice of proposed summary disposition, proposing to affirm the district court's decision. The Defendant responded with a memorandum in opposition, but the Court remained unpersuaded and affirmed the conviction.
  Admission of Blood Test Results: The Court found no error in the admission of the blood test results despite the six-month delay, noting that the SLD regulations do not specify a time requirement for the delivery of blood samples to the SLD, only for their collection (para 3). The Defendant's reliance on an article to argue that six months is not a reasonable time was not sufficient to demonstrate the unreliability of the test results, especially since there was no indication that this argument was made at the district court level (para 4).
  Admission of the SLD Analyst’s Testimony: The Court addressed the Defendant's challenge regarding the SLD analyst's testimony, explaining that the issue seemed to stem from the State's failure to designate the analyst as an expert witness. However, the Court found that the Defendant did not provide sufficient information to demonstrate that she was prejudiced by this failure. The Court concluded that the district court's admission of the SLD analyst's testimony was correct for any reason, noting that the witness was disclosed and the content of his testimony was discoverable (paras 5-8).