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 aggravated DWI (refusal, first offense) following a bench trial in the metropolitan court. The conviction was based, in part, on Sergeant Barraza's testimony regarding the Defendant's performance on standardized field sobriety tests (SFSTs), which the Sergeant claimed to recall independently after refreshing his memory with his police report.

Procedural History

• Metropolitan Court: Convicted the Defendant of aggravated DWI (refusal, first offense).
• District Court of Bernalillo County: Affirmed the metropolitan court's conviction following an on-record review.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the metropolitan court erred in admitting Sergeant Barraza's testimony about the SFSTs because the Sergeant had no independent recollection of the Defendant's performance outside of his police report. The Defendant also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction, questioning the reliability of Sergeant Barraza's testimony and offering alternative explanations for the observed signs of impairment.
• Appellee (State): Defended the admission of Sergeant Barraza's testimony, asserting that the Sergeant properly refreshed his memory and was able to testify from his present recollection. The State also argued that the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for aggravated DWI.

Legal Issues

• Whether the metropolitan court erred in admitting Sergeant Barraza's testimony about the Defendant's performance on the SFSTs.
• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for aggravated DWI.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction for aggravated DWI (refusal, first offense).

Reasons

• Per Jonathan B. Sutin, Judge (with Roderick T. Kennedy, Chief Judge, and Michael E. Vigil, Judge concurring):
  The Court found that Sergeant Barraza's testimony was properly admitted because he testified that his memory was refreshed and he could recall the Defendant's performance on the SFSTs independently of his police report (paras 2-3). The Court also held that the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction, noting that Sergeant Barraza's observations were one of several factors indicative of the Defendant's impairment by alcohol (paras 4-5). The Court acknowledged the Defendant's challenges but concluded that these were matters for the fact-finder to consider in weighing the evidence and determining credibility (paras 3-5).