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 of DWI. The State presented evidence of the Defendant's intoxication and refusal to submit to breath-alcohol testing after being advised of the implied consent law. The Defendant challenged the sufficiency of this evidence and objected to testimony regarding the suspension of her license, which was heard by the jury.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Jacqueline D. Flores, District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the DWI conviction and contested the trial court's decision not to declare a mistrial after the jury heard testimony about her suspended license.
• Appellee (State): Contended that the evidence of the Defendant's intoxication and refusal to undergo breath-alcohol testing was sufficient to uphold the conviction. The State also argued that the trial court's curative instruction was an adequate remedy for any potential prejudice arising from the testimony about the Defendant's suspended license.

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for DWI.
• Whether the trial court should have declared a mistrial after the jury heard testimony regarding the Defendant's suspended license.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.

Reasons

• Per Cynthia A. Fry, J. (James J. Wechsler, J., and M. Monica Zamora, J., concurring):
  The Court found the State's evidence, including the Defendant's displayed signs of intoxication and refusal to submit to breath-alcohol testing, sufficient to support the DWI conviction (para 3). The Court did not reweigh evidence or draw alternative inferences, adhering to precedent that emphasizes the jury's role in these determinations (para 3).
  Regarding the issue of the mistrial, the Court noted that the objectionable testimony about the Defendant's suspended license was not intentionally elicited and that the Defendant did not appear to have requested a mistrial. The Court deemed the district court's curative instruction an adequate remedy, aligning with precedent that favors such instructions over declaring a mistrial for inadvertent remarks (paras 4-5). The Court rejected the Defendant's suggestion that the prosecutor intentionally elicited the testimony about the suspended license, concluding that the line of inquiry was intended to describe the sequence of events leading to the arrest (para 4).