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 DWI (Driving While Intoxicated). The conviction was based on the results of a Breath Alcohol Test (BAT), which indicated levels of 0.08 or higher, sufficient to support convictions for per se DWI under the relevant legal standards.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the trial court refused to consider countervailing evidence, including the testimony of a witness who discussed uncertainty regarding the BAT results ([MIO 1-2]).
• Appellee (State): Maintained that the BAT results of 0.08 or higher are sufficient to support convictions for per se DWI, and that the trial court duly considered all evidence presented.

Legal Issues

• Whether the decision in State v. Montoya should be reconsidered as it is controlling on the first and second issues raised by the Defendant.
• Whether the trial court erred by allegedly refusing to consider countervailing evidence against the BAT results.

Disposition

• The appeal was denied, and the conviction for DWI was affirmed.

Reasons

• The panel, consisting of Judges James J. Wechsler, Jonathan B. Sutin, and Linda M. Vanzi, unanimously affirmed the conviction. The Defendant conceded that the decision in State v. Montoya was controlling regarding the first and second issues and encouraged the Court to reconsider that decision, which the Court declined ([para 3]). Regarding the third issue, the Court found that the trial court had duly considered all evidence presented, including testimony discussing uncertainty about the BAT results. The Court noted that reliance upon the BAT results was permissible, aligning with precedent that SLD-approved chemical test results of 0.08 or higher are sufficient to support convictions for per se DWI ([paras 4-5]).