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 aggravated driving while intoxicated (0.16 or above) (second offense).

Procedural History

• District Court of Eddy County: Convicted the Defendant for aggravated driving while intoxicated (second offense).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court abused its discretion in admitting the breath card evidence over the Defendant's objection to foundation.
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Filed a notice of non-opposition to the appellate court's notice of proposed disposition, indicating it will not file a memorandum in opposition.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court abused its discretion in admitting the breath card evidence over the Defendant's objection to foundation.
• Whether the Defendant’s retrial is barred due to insufficient evidence.
• Whether there was a confrontation or a due process violation in the Defendant's trial.

Disposition

• The conviction for aggravated driving while intoxicated (second offense) is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial.
• The retrial of the Defendant is not barred as the State presented substantial evidence.
• The Defendant's claim of a confrontation or a due process violation is rejected.

Reasons

• Per IVES, J., with DUFFY, J., and YOHALEM, J., concurring:
  The appellate court decided to reverse the district court's decision based on the reasoning contained in its notice of proposed disposition, agreeing with the Defendant that the district court abused its discretion in admitting the breath card evidence (para 1).
  The State's filing of a notice of non-opposition to the appellate court's notice of proposed disposition and its decision not to file a memorandum in opposition influenced the court's decision (para 1).
  The appellate court concluded that a retrial is not barred as the State presented substantial evidence, and it rejected the Defendant's claim of a confrontation or a due process violation based on the reasoning contained in its proposed disposition (paras 2-3).