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 April 5, 2018, the Defendant was stopped by a police officer in Las Cruces, New Mexico, for driving with a broken taillight. During the stop, the officer suspected the Defendant was under the influence of marijuana due to the smell of perfume and marijuana coming from the vehicle and the Defendant's admission of smoking marijuana the previous day. After failing field sobriety tests, the Defendant was arrested and charged with driving under the influence (DUI) and several minor traffic offenses. The Defendant consented to a breathalyzer test, which showed no alcohol in her system. However, she refused to participate in a Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) examination after being read her Miranda rights (paras 2-11).

Procedural History

• Municipal Court: Convicted of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicating drugs and driving without a license. Pleaded guilty to the broken taillight and to driving without registration and insurance (para 3).
• District Court of Dona Ana County: Convicted on appeal from Municipal Court of DUI and driving without a license. Sentenced to ninety days for each conviction, both suspended (paras 13-14).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (City of Las Cruces): Argued that the DRE examination is not testimonial and primarily elicits physical evidence, thus the Defendant's refusal to participate could be introduced as evidence of guilt (para 19).
• Defendant-Appellant: Contended that the prosecutor's questions and comments about her refusal to speak with the DRE officer were impermissible, violating her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and her Fourteenth Amendment right to due process (para 16).

Legal Issues

• Whether the prosecutor's introduction of testimony and comments on the Defendant's post-Miranda warning silence to show a consciousness of guilt was plain error (para 1).
• Whether sufficient evidence supported the Defendant's conviction for DUI (para 27).
• Whether a sentencing error gives the Defendant a right to a jury trial (para 33).

Disposition

• The court reversed and remanded for a new trial on the DUI charge due to the improper questioning and commentary on the Defendant's post-Miranda warning silence (para 37).
• The court vacated the ninety-day suspended sentence imposed for driving without a license and remanded for imposition of the fine authorized by the Las Cruces Municipal Code of Ordinances (para 37).

Reasons

• The Court, with Judge Yohalem writing and Judges Hanisee and Bogardus concurring, found that the prosecutor's actions regarding the Defendant's refusal to participate in the DRE examination after being read her Miranda rights constituted plain error, requiring reversal of the DUI conviction. The Court distinguished between testimonial evidence, which is protected by the Fifth Amendment, and physical evidence, concluding that the DRE examination involved testimonial evidence since it required spoken responses from the Defendant. The Court also found sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's DUI conviction, allowing for a retrial. However, it identified a sentencing error for driving without a license, which did not give the Defendant a right to a jury trial but required correction of the sentence (paras 16-35).