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 conviction was based, in part, on the results of a breath-alcohol test (BAT). The Defendant challenged the admission of the BAT results on constitutional grounds, arguing that her right to confrontation was violated because the State did not call the individual(s) who calibrated and certified the BAT machine.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of San Juan County, Karen L. Townsend, District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Contended that the admission of the breath-alcohol test results violated her constitutional right to confrontation, as the State failed to call the individual or individuals who calibrated and certified the BAT machine.
• Appellee: Argued in favor of upholding the conviction, presumably relying on existing case law that the Confrontation Clause does not apply to the evidence in question.

Legal Issues

• Whether the admission of breath-alcohol test results violated the Defendant's constitutional right to confrontation by not calling the individual(s) who calibrated and certified the BAT machine.

Disposition

• The conviction for DWI was affirmed.

Reasons

• Per Timothy L. Garcia, J. (Michael E. Vigil, J., and Linda M. Vanzi, J., concurring):
  The Court was unpersuaded by the Defendant's argument against the admission of the BAT results. It referenced the recent decision in State v. Anaya, which established that the Confrontation Clause does not apply to the type of evidence in question. Despite the Defendant's acknowledgment of Anaya's dispositive nature and her request for reconsideration, the Court declined to revisit its stance. The decision to affirm the conviction was based on the precedent set by State v. Anaya, indicating the Court's adherence to established case law over the Defendant's constitutional challenge.