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 driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor (DWI), with a blood-alcohol content higher than .08, based on evidence including the arresting officer's testimony and log-book entries showing test results of .11 for each of two tests. The Defendant challenged the sufficiency of this evidence, the legality of the stop and arrest, and the admissibility of the breath test results, among other issues.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the DWI conviction, contending that the only evidence of his blood-alcohol level exceeding .08 was the arresting officer's testimony, which should bear little weight due to issues with the State’s evidence, including an illegible Intoxilyzer printout and lack of video recording of the arrest. The Defendant also argued that the district court committed fundamental error by not suppressing evidence obtained from the stop and arrest, claiming there was no reasonable suspicion for the stop or probable cause for the arrest. Additionally, the Defendant contended that the results of the breath test should have been suppressed because he was allegedly denied a request for an independent blood test and because the State did not produce a legible BAT card at trial.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Maintained that the evidence, including the arresting officer's testimony and log-book entries, was sufficient to support the conviction. The State argued that the district court did not err in its decisions not to suppress evidence related to the stop, arrest, and breath test results.

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's DWI conviction.
• Whether the district court committed fundamental error by failing to suppress evidence obtained as a result of the stop and the resultant arrest.
• Whether the district court erred in not suppressing the breath test results due to the Defendant's alleged denial of a request for an independent blood test and the lack of a legible BAT card.

Disposition

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

Reasons

• GARCIA, Judge (with RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge, and MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge concurring):
  The Court found the evidence sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction, noting that the arresting officer's testimony about the breath test results was corroborated by log-book entries showing test results of .11 for each of two tests (para 3).
  On the issue of the stop and arrest, the Court determined there was no plain error in the district court's failure to suppress evidence sua sponte, as the arresting officer had reasonable suspicion for the stop due to a malfunctioning taillight and probable cause for the arrest based on the smell of alcohol on the Defendant's breath and his performance on field-sobriety tests (paras 4-5).
  Regarding the suppression of breath test results, the Court held that the lack of a legible BAT card did not necessitate suppression, as the State provided other competent evidence of the test results, and the statute did not require a BAT card for proof. The Court also found no plain error in the district court's handling of the Defendant's request for an independent blood test, given conflicting evidence on whether such a request was made (paras 6-7).
  The Court rejected the Defendant's argument that the breath-test log should not have been admitted because the arresting officer was not established as a "custodian" of the log book. The Court found the officer qualified to testify about the log book entries as they were part of a regularly conducted activity (para 8).