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 of aggravated DWI. The conviction was based, in part, on field sobriety tests (FSTs). The Defendant argued that the State's failure to preserve the video recording of these tests violated his rights to due process and a fair trial. Additionally, the Defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction, noting that no breath test was conducted and asserting that the video of the FSTs could have supported his testimony.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County: Affirmance of conviction for aggravated DWI.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the State's failure to preserve the video recording of the FSTs violated his right to due process and a fair trial. Also contended that the evidence was insufficient to support the DWI conviction, emphasizing the importance of the missing video and disputing his performance on the FSTs.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the State's failure to preserve the video recording of the FSTs violated the Defendant's right to due process and a fair trial.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for aggravated DWI.

Disposition

• Affirmance of the district court's conviction for aggravated DWI.

Reasons

• Per Timothy L. Garcia, J., with Michael E. Vigil, Chief Judge, and M. Monica Zamora, Judge concurring: The Court was not persuaded by the Defendant's arguments regarding the violation of due process and fair trial rights due to the non-preservation of the FST video recording. It referenced the trial court's discretion in denying the Defendant's motion to suppress and deemed the remedy provided as adequate, aligning with established standards. Regarding the sufficiency of evidence, the Court found the district court's memorandum opinion, which addressed the same issues, to be thorough and correctly applied the relevant standards of review and law. The Defendant's reiteration of previously considered arguments, without presenting new authority or convincing argument, did not sway the Court from its proposed disposition to affirm the conviction (paras 1-4).