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 case involves the Defendant-Appellant, Gonzales, who was convicted for driving while intoxicated. The conviction was based on an officer's observation of Gonzales operating a vehicle in a manner suggesting intoxication. The officer testified seeing the vehicle turn off the road into a driveway, attempt to turn into another driveway, then back up, and observed Gonzales in the driver's seat. Gonzales, however, contended that it was his brother, not he, who was driving the vehicle at the time of the incident.

Procedural History

• APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN JUAN COUNTY, Thomas J. Hynes, District Judge: Gonzales was convicted for driving while intoxicated.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Gonzales): Argued that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he operated the vehicle because his brother testified that he was the one driving and that they switched seats after stopping.
• Appellee (State of New Mexico): Contended that there was sufficient evidence for the conviction, highlighting the officer's testimony and the dashboard camera video as proof that Gonzales was driving.

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support Gonzales's conviction for driving while intoxicated.
• Whether the district court erred in permitting a State Laboratory Division analyst to testify by video.

Disposition

• The motion to substitute an amended memorandum in opposition was granted.
• The motion to amend the docketing statement was denied.
• Gonzales's conviction for driving while intoxicated was affirmed.

Reasons

• BUSTAMANTE, Judge, with CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge, and JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge concurring: The court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction, citing the officer's testimony and the dashboard camera video. The court was not persuaded by Gonzales's argument regarding the insufficiency of evidence due to his brother's testimony about driving the vehicle. The court emphasized that it was the jury's role to weigh the evidence and resolve any conflicts in testimony. Regarding the motion to amend the docketing statement to add a claim about the error of permitting video testimony from a State Laboratory Division analyst, the court found that Gonzales did not preserve his Confrontation Clause argument at the district court level. The court concluded that even if admitting the video testimony was an error, Gonzales did not demonstrate that this error was fundamental, meaning it did not make his conviction fundamentally unfair or a miscarriage of justice.