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 driving while intoxicated (DWI). The conviction was primarily based on the results of a breath alcohol test, which indicated that the Defendant had a breath alcohol level exceeding the legal limit within three hours of driving.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Contended that the evidence was insufficient for a conviction, arguing specifically that the breath test results should not have been admitted due to an alleged lack of foundational compliance with Scientific Laboratory Division (SLD) regulations.
• Appellee (State): Argued that the breath test was conducted in accordance with SLD regulations, providing a sufficient foundation for the admission of the breath test results and supporting the conviction.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in admitting the breath test results into evidence.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for per se DWI.

Disposition

• The appeal was denied, and the judgment of the district court was affirmed.

Reasons

• The Court, led by Chief Judge CELIA FOY CASTILLO, with Judges MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE and TIMOTHY L. GARCIA concurring, found the officer's testimony sufficient to establish a foundational compliance with SLD regulations for the admission of the breath test results. The Court noted that the law does not require the officer to explain the machine's certification process or the margin of error for samples run, as long as there is a current SLD certificate for the machine used and the test was performed using SLD-mandated procedures. Consequently, the evidence from the breath test results was deemed sufficient to support a conviction for per se DWI, defined as driving with a breath alcohol level over .08 within three hours of driving, as per NMSA 1978, § 66-8-102(C)(1) (2010). The Court did not address the sufficiency of evidence for a conviction under impaired driving, citing State v. Olguin, which allows for the affirmance of a general verdict if one of the alternatives is supported by sufficient evidence.