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 police after a tip about a possible drunk driver. The officer observed signs of intoxication, including slurred speech and the smell of alcohol. The Defendant admitted to drinking but refused field sobriety tests. A blood test conducted 2.5 hours after the arrest showed a BAC of .11 (paras 2-4).
Procedural History
- District Court of San Miguel County: The Defendant was convicted of per se DWI under NMSA 1978, Section 66-8-102(C)(1) (2005).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the State failed to prove his BAC exceeded .08 at the time of driving, as no retrograde extrapolation evidence was presented to establish a nexus between the BAC test result and the time of driving (paras 5, 13).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the Defendant’s BAC of .11 was sufficiently high to infer his BAC exceeded .08 at the time of driving, even without retrograde extrapolation evidence. The State also relied on behavioral evidence and prior case law to support its position (paras 6, 13-14).
Legal Issues
- Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to prove the Defendant’s BAC exceeded .08 at the time of driving.
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals vacated the Defendant’s conviction for per se DWI (para 36).
Reasons
Per Castillo J. (Robles and Garcia JJ. concurring):
The Court held that under the version of NMSA 1978, Section 66-8-102(C)(1) in effect at the time of the offense, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant’s BAC was .08 or greater at the time of driving (para 10). The Court emphasized that scientific evidence, such as retrograde extrapolation, is necessary to establish a nexus between a BAC test result and the time of driving when there is a significant delay between the two (paras 15-16, 31).
The Court rejected the State’s reliance on behavioral evidence, noting that under State v. Day (Day II), such evidence is insufficient to establish the required nexus without scientific testimony (paras 25, 32). The Court also distinguished the present case from prior cases cited by the State, such as State v. Collins and State v. Cavanaugh, where higher BAC levels or shorter delays between driving and testing were involved (paras 20-22, 27-28).
Since the State failed to present retrograde extrapolation evidence or other scientific testimony to relate the Defendant’s BAC of .11, taken 2.5 hours after driving, to the time of driving, the Court concluded that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction (paras 31-33).