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 stopped by a Sergeant from the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) for driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The Sergeant observed that the Defendant had bloodshot, watery eyes and smelled of alcohol. An APD Officer conducted standardized field sobriety tests, during which the Defendant admitted to consuming alcohol shortly before driving and performed poorly. The Defendant then submitted to a breath alcohol test, which resulted in scores of .08 and .07 (para 3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, Briana H. Zamora, District Judge: Affirmed the Defendant's driving while under the influence (DWI) conviction following an on-record appeal from her bench trial conviction in metropolitan court.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the DWI per se conviction was supported by insufficient evidence, maintaining that the breath samples of .08 and .07 are of equal evidentiary weight, thereby rendering the evidence of guilt insufficient (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's DWI per se conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, considering the breath alcohol test results of .08 and .07 (para 4).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's DWI per se conviction (para 5).

Reasons

• Per Stephen G. French, J. (M. Monica Zamora, J., and Julie J. Vargas, J., concurring): The Court declined to reweigh the evidence and adopted the district court's resolution, affirming the Defendant's conviction. The Court applied the standard that substantial evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, must support a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for every essential element of the conviction. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict, the Court found that the evidence, particularly the .08 breath sample and the testimony regarding the calibration of the breathalyzer machine, supported the conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court rejected the Defendant's argument that the .07 score provided a reasonable hypothesis of innocence, clarifying that appellate courts should draw every reasonable inference in favor of the verdict and then evaluate whether the evidence supports the verdict beyond a reasonable doubt (paras 2-4).