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 found asleep in his vehicle by Deputy Carhart, displaying signs of intoxication including bloodshot watery eyes, an odor of alcohol, and what appeared to be vomit on his shirt. The Defendant admitted to drinking alcohol before driving to the location where he was found and refused to submit to field sobriety tests. A breath card introduced as evidence showed the Defendant had a blood alcohol content of 0.27. There was no evidence of alcohol containers in the vehicle or the immediate area upon inspection by Deputy Carhart (paras 4-5).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Stanley Whitaker, District Judge: The Defendant was convicted for driving while under the influence of an intoxicating liquor (DWI).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the district court’s attempt to distinguish this case from State v. Cotton was misplaced and that Cotton is directly on point, suggesting the evidence was insufficient to convict him of DWI (para 3).
• Appellee (State): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for DWI, particularly in comparison to the precedent set by State v. Cotton (para 3).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant’s conviction for DWI (para 7).

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge (JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge, and JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Judge concurring): The Court found the Defendant's reliance on State v. Cotton to argue insufficiency of evidence misplaced. Unlike in Cotton, where there was no evidence to show that the driving and impairment overlapped, the Defendant in the present case admitted to drinking alcohol before driving, was found with signs of intoxication, and had a significantly high blood alcohol content. This evidence allowed the jury to infer that the Defendant was impaired to the slightest degree when he drove the vehicle. The Court also noted that the jury could infer impairment at the time of driving based on circumstantial evidence, including the Defendant's admission to drinking, his physical condition when found, and the absence of any alcohol containers in the vehicle or immediate area, which suggested he did not consume alcohol after driving to the location. The Court concluded that disbelief of the Defendant's claim that he only drank one beer before driving does not substitute for affirmative proof, as the evidence presented constituted sufficient affirmative proof of impairment (paras 3-6).