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 under the influence of intoxicating liquor (DWI), first offense. The conviction was based on breath alcohol test (BAT) results which showed a level of .09/.09. The Defendant challenged the reliability of these results, arguing that the actual results could have been below the legal limit of .08 due to the allowable margin of error and questioned the accuracy-ensuring procedures of the BAT due to multiple failed attempts to provide a sufficient sample before a valid one was obtained (para 2).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Alisa Ann Hadfield, District Judge: The Defendant's conviction for DWI, first offense, was affirmed.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the reliability of the BAT results to convict for per se DWI. Contended that the results were within the margin of error and could have been below .08. Also argued that the accuracy of the BAT results was compromised due to multiple insufficient samples and the lack of air blanks run after these failed attempts (para 2).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Maintained that the regulations were followed as blanks are only required between any subject sample and calibration sample, not between failed attempts and a valid sample. Asserted that the admission of BAT results is a policy-based decision for the judge based on their reliability (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the breath alcohol test (BAT) results were sufficiently reliable to prove the Defendant's guilt of per se DWI beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Whether the procedures followed in administering the BAT compromised the reliability of its results.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction for DWI, first offense (para 4).

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Michael D. Bustamante, Jonathan B. Sutin, and Stephen G. French, found that the regulations only require blanks to be run between any subject sample and calibration sample, not between failed attempts and a valid sample. The Court held that the lack of information on the BAT card regarding aborted samples pertains to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility. It was determined that any questions regarding the validity and accuracy of the BAT results should be considered by the jury. The Court also noted that the defense had the opportunity to question the BAT results and argue their accuracy and weight. Since the Court affirmed the conviction based on the BAT results, it did not address the Defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of evidence under the impaired to the slightest degree standard (paras 2-4).