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 DWI. The case involved the admission of Breath Alcohol Test (BrAT) results, which the Defendant challenged based on the State's alleged failure to comply with a specific regulation regarding the number of samples required for the test.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Brett R. Loveless, District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the BrAT results should not have been admitted because the State failed to establish compliance with the regulation requiring a certain number of samples to be taken. Additionally, contended that the possibility of rounding in the test results could have concealed an actual disparity in the results greater than the allowed 0.02.
• Appellee: Maintained that the testimony of the administering officer, who obtained two samples with results of 0.10 and 0.12, provided sufficient evidence of compliance with the regulation, supporting the district court's ruling.

Legal Issues

• Whether the State established compliance with the regulation concerning the number of breath samples required for the BrAT.
• Whether the potential for rounding in the BrAT results could invalidate the evidence due to a possible disparity greater than 0.02 between samples.

Disposition

• The conviction for DWI was affirmed.

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, Chief Judge, with Timothy L. Garcia, Judge, and Stephen G. French, Judge concurring:
  The Court found the State had demonstrated compliance with the regulation requiring a certain number of breath samples by a preponderance of the evidence, as the administering officer testified to obtaining two samples with results of 0.10 and 0.12 (para 3).
  The Court declined the Defendant's invitation to take judicial notice of an operator’s manual not in the record, as it did not concern a matter of common knowledge. The Court also noted the absence of evidentiary support for the Defendant's theory that rounding might have concealed a disparity greater than 0.02 between the test results (para 4).