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 aggravated driving while intoxicated (DWI). The conviction was based on the theory of "actual physical control" of a vehicle, which requires demonstrating that the defendant was not only in control of the vehicle but also had the intent to drive in a manner posing a real danger.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the definition of "actual physical control" in the context of DWI, claiming a violation of the right to confrontation due to testimony regarding a call to dispatch, and challenging the admission of the 911 tape log under the business records exception to the hearsay rule.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Maintained that the jury was adequately instructed on the law regarding "actual physical control" and intent to drive, contended that information from a 911 call is generally considered non-testimonial and does not violate the Confrontation Clause, and supported the admission of the 911 tape log as a public record exception to the hearsay rule.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in refusing the Defendant's jury instruction on the definition of "actual physical control" for DWI purposes.
• Whether the Defendant's right to confrontation was violated by allowing testimony regarding a call to dispatch.
• Whether the 911 tape log was properly admitted under the business records exception to the hearsay rule.
• Whether the Defendant opened the door to his character when stating "I won’t do that" in reference to drinking and driving.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of the Defendant for aggravated driving while intoxicated.

Reasons

• Per RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge (JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge, LINDA M. VANZI, Judge concurring):
  The Court found that the jury was adequately instructed on the elements of DWI by actual physical control, including the requirement of intent to drive, thus rejecting the Defendant's argument regarding the jury instruction (MIO 4; RP 85, RP 56).
  It was determined that the testimony regarding the call to dispatch did not violate the Defendant's right to confrontation, as information provided by a citizen 911 caller is generally considered non-testimonial (MIO 6).
  The admission of the 911 tape log under the business records exception to the hearsay rule was deemed proper, with the Court also noting that it was admissible under the public records exception (MIO 13).
  The Court concluded that the district court acted within its discretion by interpreting the Defendant's statement "I won’t do that" as a general statement of character, allowing for non-extrinsic impeachment under Rule 11-608(B)(1) NMRA (DS 5; MIO 3, 16).