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 for driving while under the influence (DWI, 2nd offense). The conviction was based, in part, on breath-alcohol test results. The Defendant contended that the test results were invalid due to noncompliance with specific procedures, particularly concerning the requirement that the test subject not have anything to eat, drink, or smoke for at least twenty minutes prior to the collection of the first breath sample. The Defendant argued that the presence of his own blood in his mouth during the test compromised the accuracy of the results.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the district court erred by considering testimony on whether noncompliance with State Laboratory Division (SLD) procedures affected the validity of the breathalyzer result instead of determining if SLD procedures were followed. Additionally, contended that Regulation 7.33.2.12(B)(1) NMAC was not satisfied due to the presence of his own blood in his mouth during the breath-alcohol test (paras 2, 4).
• Appellee (State): Presented testimony from the officer who administered the Breath Alcohol Test (BAT) and an expert, asserting compliance with the 20-minute deprivation period and arguing that the presence of the test subject’s own blood would not compromise the accuracy of the test results (paras 6).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in considering testimony about the impact of noncompliance with SLD procedures on the validity of the breathalyzer result instead of directly assessing compliance with those procedures.
• Whether the district court erred in admitting the Defendant's breath-alcohol test results, given the alleged noncompliance with Regulation 7.33.2.12(B)(1) NMAC due to the presence of the Defendant's own blood in his mouth.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction for driving while under the influence (DWI, 2nd offense) (para 9).

Reasons

• Per Cynthia A. Fry, Judge (Roderick T. Kennedy, Chief Judge, and Linda M. Vanzi, Judge concurring): The Court remained unpersuaded by the Defendant's assertions of error, finding that the issue regarding the admissibility of expert testimony on the breathalyzer test's accuracy, despite alleged procedural noncompliance, was not preserved for appeal due to lack of objection at trial. The Court also found the Defendant's new argument regarding the admission of breath-alcohol test results, raised for the first time in a memorandum in opposition, to be unviable as it was not included in the initial docketing statement. Testimony from the arresting officer and an expert supported the district court's determination that all accuracy-ensuring regulations had been satisfied, including the 20-minute deprivation period, despite the Defendant's claim of his own blood affecting the test results. The Court concluded that the district court's findings were supported by a preponderance of the evidence and rejected the Defendant's arguments against the admission of the breath-alcohol test results (paras 1-8).