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 DWI (3rd Offense) following an incident where he was found by Officer Powers at the scene of a motor vehicle accident. The Defendant's car was upside down with both open and unopened beer cans scattered around. He exhibited signs of intoxication such as a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech. No chemical tests were conducted due to the Defendant's injuries from the accident and the unavailability of a technician to administer a blood test.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Neil C. Candelaria, District Judge: Affirmance of metropolitan court conviction for DWI (3rd Offense).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the State failed in its duty to collect and preserve a chemical (BAC) test as mandated by the Implied Consent Act and contended that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction for driving while intoxicated.
• Appellee: Maintained that the absence of a chemical test did not constitute reversible error and argued that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for DWI.

Legal Issues

• Whether the State had a duty to collect and preserve a chemical (BAC) test under the Implied Consent Act.
• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for driving while intoxicated.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's on-the-record affirmance of the Defendant's metropolitan court conviction for DWI (3rd Offense).

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Judge (MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge, CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge concurring):
  The court found that the Implied Consent Act did not impose a mandatory duty on the State to collect and preserve a chemical test but rather left it to the discretion of the law enforcement officer under the circumstances. The district court's finding that the failure to administer a chemical test constituted, at most, ordinary negligence did not warrant reversal of the conviction. Regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, the court held that the testimony of Officer Powers, combined with the physical evidence at the scene, was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant drove under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The court was not persuaded by the Defendant's arguments in opposition, which suggested that the accident could have been caused by factors other than impairment and that the odor of alcohol alone was insufficient to support the conviction.