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 for driving while intoxicated and careless driving. The conviction followed a judgment and sentence entered by the metropolitan court, which was subsequently reviewed on record.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Charles W. Brown, District Judge, July 2, 2018: Upheld the metropolitan court's convictions of the Defendant for driving while intoxicated and careless driving.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the testimony regarding the police officer's proper administration of standard field sobriety tests was improperly admitted.
• Appellee: Supported the district court's decision, asserting that the testimony was properly admitted and, even if it were not, any error was harmless as the trial court did not rely on this evidence in its decision.

Legal Issues

• Whether the testimony about the police officer's administration of standard field sobriety tests was properly admitted.
• Whether any error in admitting the testimony was harmless because the trial court did not rely on it in rendering its decision.

Disposition

• The convictions for driving while intoxicated and careless driving entered by the metropolitan court are affirmed.

Reasons

• Per M. Monica Zamora, J. (J. Miles Hanisee, J., and Henry M. Bohnhoff, J., concurring):
  The court found that the district court did not err in admitting the testimony regarding the police officer's administration of standard field sobriety tests. It was determined that even if the testimony were considered inadmissible, the metropolitan court did not rely on this testimony in rendering its decision, rendering any alleged error harmless. This conclusion was supported by citing State v. Hernandez and State v. Mitchell, which establish that erroneous admission of evidence in a bench trial is presumed harmless unless it appears the court must have relied on the improper evidence in its decision-making process (paras 1-3).