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 in metropolitan court for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs (first offense) (slightest degree) (DWI) following a crash. The Defendant argued that the crash was caused by a tire issue and not by intoxication, and that his beer consumption occurred at least three hours prior to the crash (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• APPEAL FROM THE METROPOLITAN COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY: Defendant was convicted for DWI.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Contended that the arrest was not supported by probable cause, arguing there was no evidence the crash was due to impairment, and that the crash was caused by a tire issue. Also argued that beer consumption occurred three hours before the crash and that alternative field sobriety tests should have been given (paras 2-3).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Argued that probable cause for the Defendant's arrest was sufficiently established based on the circumstances of the crash and that the court is free to reject the Defendant's version of the facts. Emphasized that factual findings and credibility determinations are for the fact-finder to resolve (paras 2-3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to suppress based on a lack of probable cause for arrest.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to convict the Defendant of DWI.

Disposition

• The conviction of the Defendant for DWI by the metropolitan court is affirmed (para 5).

Reasons

• Per IVES, J., with ATTREP, J., and BOGARDUS, J., concurring:
  The Court found that probable cause for the Defendant's arrest was sufficiently established, noting that specific circumstances for probable cause are not required and that the fact-finder is free to reject the Defendant's version of the facts (para 2).
  The Court declined to reweigh evidence on appeal, emphasizing that resolving conflicts in testimony and determining credibility are functions of the fact-finder. It also noted that appellate review accepts evidence supporting the verdict while disregarding contrary evidence (para 3).
  The Court was unpersuaded by the Defendant's arguments in his memorandum in opposition, stating that the burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law, and merely repeating earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement (para 4).