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 found guilty of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs, first offense. He appealed the judgment, challenging the constitutionality of holding his bench trial via audio-visual connection under a Supreme Court Order issued in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Procedural History

• Metropolitan Court of Bernalillo County: Found the Defendant guilty of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs, first offense.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that (1) the Supreme Court Order allowing for his trial to be conducted via audio-visual connection is unconstitutional, (2) it conflicts with state and federal precedent, and (3) the lack of a visual record from the bench trial necessitates either a reconstruction of the record or a new trial.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Supreme Court Order allowing for bench trials to be conducted via audio-visual connection is unconstitutional.
• Whether the Supreme Court Order conflicts with state and federal precedent.
• Whether the lack of a visual record from the bench trial requires a reconstruction of the record or a new trial.

Disposition

• The appeal was denied, and the judgment of the lower court was affirmed.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Chief Judge J. Miles Hanisee authoring the opinion, and Judges Jacqueline R. Medina and Gerald E. Baca concurring, held that:
  The Court of Appeals is precluded from reviewing arguments challenging the constitutionality or validity of New Mexico Supreme Court orders (para 2).
  The Defendant did not demonstrate error on the part of the district court that requires reversal. The Supreme Court Order mandates the use of telephonic or audio-video connection for all hearings, except for jury trials, unless a compelling need for an in-person appearance is established. The Defendant's arguments did not demonstrate that the district court failed to comply with this requirement (para 3).
  The lack of a visual record of the bench trial, based on hypotheticals and assertions by counsel, does not constitute error. The Court distinguished the case from precedent by noting that an audio record of the bench trial exists and is not inadequate or nonfunctional for the purpose of serving as a record of the bench trial (para 4).
  Technical issues during the bench trial, such as delays and interruptions, were not proven to constitute error or to compromise the integrity of the trial process or the Defendant's right to confrontation, especially given the existence of a clear audio record (para 5).