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 first offense aggravated DWI after being observed driving a dirt bike under the influence, losing control and skidding into a fence, and refusing to submit to a breathalyzer test. The State's evidence included the officer's testimony regarding the Defendant's driving behavior, the smell of alcohol, and the Defendant's performance on field sobriety tests (FSTs).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of San Juan County, Daylene A. Marsh, District Judge: Convicted for first offense aggravated DWI.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the State failed to establish the dirt bike as a "motor vehicle" under the Motor Vehicle Code and contended the evidence was insufficient due to the absence of a video recording of the encounter, which could have contradicted the officer's testimony about signs of impairment.
• Appellee: Maintained that the dirt bike qualifies as a "vehicle" under the DWI statute and that the officer's testimony, along with the Defendant's refusal to submit to chemical testing, provided sufficient evidence for conviction.

Legal Issues

• Whether the dirt bike operated by the Defendant qualifies as a "motor vehicle" under the Motor Vehicle Code.
• Whether the absence of a video recording of the encounter affects the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction.
• Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to support the conviction for aggravated DWI, especially considering the Defendant's refusal to submit to chemical testing.

Disposition

• Affirmed the district court’s judgment and sentence, convicting the Defendant for first offense aggravated DWI.

Reasons

• The Court, led by Judge Michael E. Vigil with concurrence from Judges J. Miles Hanisee and Henry M. Bohnhoff, held that:
  The definition of "vehicle" under the DWI statute is broad enough to include a motorized dirt bike, as previously construed to include mopeds and ATVs, thus rejecting the Defendant's argument that his dirt bike does not qualify (paras 3).
  The absence of the video recording is relevant to the weight of the evidence, not its sufficiency. The Court found the officer's testimony regarding the Defendant's behavior and refusal to submit to chemical testing sufficient to support the conviction (paras 4-5).
  The Defendant's refusal to submit to chemical testing is an element of the crime of aggravated DWI under Section 66-8-102(D)(3), and the State provided ample evidence of intoxication, including the refusal itself, to support the conviction (paras 8-9).