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, Justus Watson, was stopped on suspicion of driving while intoxicated (DWI). Breath alcohol testing yielded readings of .08 and .07 grams of alcohol per 210 liters of air. Based on these results, the Defendant was charged and subsequently convicted of per se DWI under NMSA 1978, Section 66-8-102(C)(1) (para 1).

Procedural History

• Metropolitan Court: Convicted the Defendant of per se DWI (para 1).
• District Court of Bernalillo County: Affirmed the metropolitan court's conviction (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of per se DWI, positing that the two breath alcohol scores (.08 and .07) carry equal evidentiary weight and, therefore, cannot establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Contended that the evidence, particularly the .08 breath alcohol score, was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for per se DWI (paras 2-5).

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to convict the Defendant of per se DWI given the two breath alcohol scores of .08 and .07 (para 1).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals of New Mexico affirmed the Defendant's conviction for per se DWI (para 6).

Reasons

• Per Henry M. Bohnhoff, Judge (Linda M. Vanzi, Chief Judge, and Emil J. Kiehne, Judge, concurring):
  The Court applied a two-step process for reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, which involves drawing every reasonable inference in favor of the jury’s verdict and then evaluating whether the evidence supports the verdict beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court found that the evidence of one of the Defendant’s breath alcohol samples testing at .08 was sufficient to support the district court’s conclusion of guilt for per se DWI. The Court rejected the Defendant's argument that the two breath scores being equally consistent with being at or below the legal limit rendered the evidence insufficient to support a conviction. This rejection was based on the Supreme Court's clarification in State v. Garcia (2016) that the standard of review does not involve formulating a hypothesis of innocence but rather whether the evidence supports the verdict beyond a reasonable doubt. Following this standard, the Court concluded that the fact-finder's credit to the .08 breath score as the basis for finding guilt was not to be disturbed. The Defendant's remaining arguments were found unpersuasive, leading to the affirmation of the conviction (paras 2-5).