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, Trisha Peralta, was convicted for driving while under the influence of an intoxicating liquor and speeding. The appeal focuses on the admissibility of the Breath Alcohol Test (BAT) card results and the sufficiency of evidence regarding the speeding charge.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Judith Nakamura, District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the district court erred in admitting the BAT card results due to insufficient foundation, specifically criticizing the deputy's ability to refresh his memory from the BAT card, the clarity of testimony regarding calibration standards, and the explanation of the deprivation period before the breath sample was collected. Additionally, the Defendant contested the sufficiency of evidence to support the speeding conviction.
• Appellee (State): Defended the district court's decision, maintaining that the evidence was properly admitted and sufficient to support the convictions.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in allowing the BAT card results into evidence with the claim of insufficient foundation.
• Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish compliance with the required deprivation period before collecting the breath sample.
• Whether the evidence was sufficient to convict the Defendant of speeding.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment on on-record metropolitan court appeal.

Reasons

• Per Linda M. Vanzi, Judge, with Cynthia A. Fry, Judge, and M. Monica Zamora, Judge concurring:
  The Court found no merit in the Defendant's arguments against the admission of the BAT card results, holding that the district court correctly decided the issues regarding the foundation for the BAT card results and the deputy's testimony (paras 2-4).
  The Court rejected the Defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of evidence regarding the deprivation period before the breath sample collection, emphasizing that conflicts in evidence were for the trial court to resolve and that the State presented sufficient evidence of compliance with the requisite deprivation period (para 5).
  The Court also dismissed the Defendant's argument regarding the insufficiency of evidence to support the speeding conviction, agreeing with the district court's conclusion that the officer’s testimony was sufficient to establish speeding (para 7).