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 involved in a single-vehicle accident and sustained head injuries. Following the accident, an arresting officer read the Defendant the Implied Consent Act and asked for consent to a blood draw. The Defendant nodded and verbally consented, later signing a consent form. The Defendant later argued that her consent was not voluntary due to her head injuries (paras 2 and 4).
Procedural History
- District Court of Lea County: Denied the Defendant's motion to suppress blood test results, finding that the Defendant's consent was voluntary (para 2).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that her consent to the blood draw was not voluntary due to head injuries sustained in the accident, and that the district court should have given weight to her testimony regarding her condition (paras 2 and 5).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Argued that the Defendant's consent was specific, unequivocal, and voluntary, as evidenced by her verbal and non-verbal responses and the signed consent form (paras 4 and 6).
Legal Issues
- Whether the Defendant's consent to the warrantless blood draw was voluntary given her head injuries.
- Whether the district court erred in denying the motion to suppress the blood test results.
Disposition
- The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to deny the motion to suppress the blood test results (para 8).
Reasons
Per Yohalem J. (Attrep and Henderson JJ. concurring): The Court found that the district court's factual findings were supported by substantial evidence, particularly regarding the Defendant's credibility. The Defendant's consent was deemed voluntary as it was specific and unequivocal, given without duress or coercion, and the district court applied the correct legal standard. The Court declined to reweigh evidence or assess witness credibility, which is the role of the fact-finder. The Defendant's additional arguments regarding the officer's actions were not preserved for appeal and were not addressed (paras 5-7).