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

• On July 23, 2011, the Defendant was driving a pickup truck on I-40 in Gallup, New Mexico, when the vehicle veered off the road, struck a light pole, and rolled over multiple times, resulting in the deaths of two passengers. The Defendant was taken to the hospital with injuries, and despite showing signs of alcohol consumption, was not arrested or read the Implied Consent Act at the scene. A search warrant was later obtained to draw the Defendant's blood, leading to her formal arrest (paras 2, 3).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of McKinley County, Louis E. DePauli, Jr., District Judge.
• Certiorari Denied, January 23, 2015, No. 35,038.
• Released for Publication March 31, 2015.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the blood alcohol content (BAC) results should have been suppressed due to false statements in the search warrant, that comments made by the prosecutor during jury selection and an emotional reaction from a courtroom audience member warranted a mistrial, and that the BAC results and expert testimony on retrograde extrapolation were admitted without adequate foundation and in violation of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Contended that a blood draw can proceed solely pursuant to a valid search warrant, outside of the Implied Consent Act, and defended the trial court's decisions regarding the admission of BAC results, handling of the trial process, and the denial of the Defendant's motions for mistrial (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether a blood draw can proceed solely pursuant to a valid search warrant, outside of the Implied Consent Act.
• Whether the BAC results should have been suppressed due to false statements in the search warrant authorizing the blood draw.
• Whether comments made by the prosecutor during jury selection and an emotional reaction from a courtroom audience member prejudiced the jury and warranted a mistrial.
• Whether the district court improperly admitted the BAC results and expert testimony regarding retrograde extrapolation without adequate foundation and in violation of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals of New Mexico affirmed the Defendant's convictions for two counts of vehicular homicide (para 38).

Reasons

• The Court held that a blood draw can proceed solely pursuant to a valid search warrant, outside of the Implied Consent Act, and found no merit in the Defendant's other contentions. The Court reasoned that Fourth Amendment jurisprudence prefers searches conducted pursuant to a warrant in the context of blood draws and that consent and arrest are exceptions to the warrant requirement. The Court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Defendant's motions for mistrial based on the prosecutor's comments during jury selection and an emotional courtroom outburst. Additionally, the Court concluded that the BAC results and expert testimony on retrograde extrapolation were properly admitted, and the Confrontation Clause did not require live testimony concerning the blood draw (paras 4-37).