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

• In August 2008, the Defendant was charged with DWI and driving with a revoked or suspended license, though the latter charge was later dismissed. The first trial resulted in a guilty verdict, which was set aside due to an issue with the jury instructions, leading to a retrial. At the second trial, the Defendant objected to the admission of the blood alcohol report on confrontation grounds, but the objection was overruled, and the Defendant was found guilty again. The Defendant had at least five other DWI convictions and was sentenced to two years in prison followed by one year of parole and supervision.

Procedural History

• First trial (April 2009): Jury returned a guilty verdict, which was later set aside due to a problem with the jury instructions, leading to a retrial.
• Second trial (October 2009): Defendant was found guilty again despite objections to the admission of evidence on confrontation grounds.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that his right to be free from double jeopardy and his right to confrontation were violated by the retrial and the admission of the blood alcohol report, respectively.
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued in favor of the conviction, presumably defending the trial court's decisions regarding the retrial and the admission of evidence.

Legal Issues

• Whether double jeopardy principles precluded a second trial.
• Whether the district court violated the Defendant's rights under the confrontation clause by admitting the blood alcohol report.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction.

Reasons

• Per CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge (JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge, LINDA M. VANZI, Judge concurring):
  The Court reviewed the Defendant's claims de novo and found them unpersuasive. Regarding the double jeopardy claim, the Court referenced State v. Armijo, which dealt with similar arguments and concluded that errors in jury instructions do not bar retrial. The Court found no error in the district court's decision to retry the Defendant. On the confrontation clause issue, the Court did not review the Defendant's argument because the State’s exhibit one (the 705 form) was not part of the record proper, and appellate review is limited to the record properly certified by the clerk of the trial court. Thus, the Court affirmed the conviction based on precedents and procedural rules.