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 while intoxicated (DWI) in the slightest degree after being stopped by an officer who observed the Defendant's vehicle drifting across the lane three times. Upon stopping the vehicle, the officer detected an odor of alcohol, noted the Defendant's thick, slurred speech and bloodshot watery eyes, and observed the Defendant's difficulty with field sobriety tests. The Defendant admitted to drinking. Although the breath test results were rejected for the per se DWI alternative due to concerns with the twenty-minute deprivation period, the Defendant was convicted under the "slightest degree" alternative (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County: Affirmation of metropolitan court conviction for driving while intoxicated (slightest degree).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the evidence presented does not necessarily indicate impairment and offered alternative explanations for the observations made by the officer. Additionally, maintained that the judge improperly relied on the BAC results (paras 4-5).
• Appellee (State): Argued that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for DWI in the slightest degree, citing observations made by the officer during the traffic stop and subsequent field sobriety tests (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for driving while intoxicated in the slightest degree.
• Whether the judge improperly relied on the BAC results in convicting the Defendant.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court judgment affirming the Defendant's metropolitan court conviction for driving while intoxicated (slightest degree) (para 7).

Reasons

• Per Roderick T. Kennedy, Chief Judge (Michael E. Vigil, Judge, J. Miles Hanisee, Judge concurring): The Court held that viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, there was sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor to at least the slightest degree while operating a motor vehicle. The Court deferred to the factfinder's reasonable inferences derived from the basic facts, including the determination that they were consistent with impairment. The Court also found that the judge was able to rely on the BAC tests for purposes of rejecting the Defendant's credibility and observing that they were consistent with other evidence, despite the BAC test results being rejected for the per se alternative due to concerns with the twenty-minute deprivation period (paras 2-6).