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 stopped by an officer for driving under the influence and failing to maintain a traffic lane. During the stop, the officer observed signs of impairment, including bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and the smell of alcohol. The Defendant performed poorly on field sobriety tests, which he attributed to diabetes and a language barrier. He also refused to submit to a chemical test. (paras 1, 4-7)
Procedural History
- Metropolitan Court of Bernalillo County: The Defendant was convicted of aggravated driving under the influence and failure to maintain a traffic lane. (para 1)
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant: The Defendant argued that the State presented insufficient evidence to support his convictions for both aggravated DWI and failure to maintain a traffic lane. He claimed his poor performance on sobriety tests was due to diabetes and a language barrier. (paras 1, 4-6)
- Appellee: The State contended that there was sufficient evidence of impairment, including the officer's observations and the Defendant's refusal to submit to a chemical test. (paras 3, 7)
Legal Issues
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the conviction for aggravated DWI? (para 1)
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the conviction for failure to maintain a traffic lane? (para 9)
Disposition
- The conviction for aggravated DWI was affirmed. (para 8)
- The conviction for failure to maintain a traffic lane was reversed. (para 14)
Reasons
Per Duffy J. (Ives and Baca JJ. concurring):
The court found that the State presented sufficient evidence to support the conviction for aggravated DWI. The evidence included the officer's observations of the Defendant's impairment, his poor performance on field sobriety tests, and his refusal to submit to a chemical test. The court concluded that these factors demonstrated impairment to the slightest degree. (paras 3-8)
Regarding the failure to maintain a traffic lane, the court determined that the State did not provide sufficient evidence to support the conviction. The trial court had relied solely on the officer's observation of a six-inch drift over the lane line, which was deemed insufficient under the totality of the circumstances analysis required by precedent. The court held that a momentary lane departure does not constitute a per se violation of the statute. (paras 9-13)