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) after failing field sobriety tests, admitting to alcohol consumption, and exhibiting physical signs of intoxication. The conviction was initially made by the metropolitan court but was later reversed by the district court, which ordered a new trial.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County: Conviction for driving while intoxicated reversed and case remanded for a new trial.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that retrial should be barred by double jeopardy because the metropolitan court improperly considered extra-judicial information, including past dealings with a witness.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether retrial is barred by double jeopardy after the district court reversed the conviction due to the metropolitan court's improper consideration of extra-judicial information.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, allowing the retrial to proceed.

Reasons

• J. MILES HANISEE, Judge, with JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge, and M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge concurring, reasoned that the consideration of improper evidence by itself does not bar retrial. The court conducted a sufficiency of the evidence review, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the original verdict. It concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's DWI conviction, including her failure to perform field sobriety tests adequately, admission of alcohol consumption, and physical manifestations of alcohol consumption (paras 1-5).