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 arrested for driving under the influence of marijuana in Albuquerque, New Mexico. During a traffic stop initiated due to erratic driving, law enforcement detected the odor of burnt marijuana from the vehicle and discovered a marijuana pipe. The Defendant admitted to smoking marijuana "a couple hours" earlier. After failing standardized field sobriety tests and additional tests, the Defendant was arrested for DUI. At the police station, the Defendant consented to a breath test, which showed negative for alcohol, but refused a blood test (paras 4-9).

Procedural History

• Metropolitan court: The Defendant was convicted of aggravated DUI, possession of drug paraphernalia, and failing to maintain lane (para 10).
• District court: Affirmed the metropolitan court's convictions (para 10).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the trial court erred by denying a motion to strike jurors for cause, claimed insufficient evidence for aggravated DUI conviction, contested the denial of a motion for mistrial due to the prosecutor's comments on DUI legal standards, challenged the constitutionality of NMSA 1978, Section 66-8-102(D)(3) for punishing refusal to submit to a warrantless blood draw, and argued that the prosecutor's comments on refusal to submit to a blood draw constituted fundamental error (paras 1, 11-20, 22-32, 33-43, 44-59).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the Defendant failed to demonstrate bias or inability of jurors to decide the case based on evidence and the court's instructions, and argued that the Defendant waived the Fourth Amendment argument by not raising it below. The State also argued against the retroactive application of Birchfield to the Defendant's case (paras 16, 22, 30).

Legal Issues

• Whether the trial court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to strike jurors for cause.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the aggravated DUI conviction.
• Whether the trial court erred by denying the Defendant's motion for a mistrial due to the prosecutor's comments on DUI legal standards.
• Whether NMSA 1978, Section 66-8-102(D)(3) is unconstitutional for punishing refusal to submit to a warrantless blood draw.
• Whether the prosecutor's comments on the Defendant's refusal to submit to a blood draw constituted fundamental error.

Disposition

• The conviction for the aggravated portion of the DUI was reversed, and the conviction for DUI without aggravation was affirmed. The court also affirmed the Defendant's remaining convictions and remanded to the metropolitan court for entry of judgment and sentencing consistent with the opinion (para 62).

Reasons

• The court concluded that under Birchfield v. North Dakota and State v. Vargas, NMSA 1978, Section 66-8-102(D)(3) is unconstitutional to the extent it punishes refusal to submit to a blood draw under the facts of this case. However, the court found that the constitutional proscription announced in Birchfield does not extend to the introduction of evidence of, or a prosecutor’s comment on, such refusal to consent. The court was not persuaded by the Defendant's remaining arguments, including the sufficiency of evidence for aggravated DUI, the trial court's denial of a motion for mistrial, and the prosecutor's comments on the legal standard for DUI. The court exercised discretion to consider the Fourth Amendment challenge despite lack of preservation due to the fundamental right involved. The court also noted that the prosecutor's comments during closing argument regarding the Defendant's refusal to take a blood test did not violate his constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment (paras 20-41, 43-59).