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 intoxicated (DWI). The conviction was based, in part, on the results of a breath-alcohol test (BAT). The Defendant challenged the admissibility of the BAT results, arguing that the State did not properly establish that the breath testing apparatus was located in an approved site.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Stan Whitaker, District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Contended that the district court erred in admitting the BAT results because the State failed to affirmatively establish that the breath testing apparatus was in an approved location, which should be considered a fatal deficiency.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Argued that the foundational requirements for admitting BAT results were satisfied based on an officer’s testimony regarding the certification sticker on the breath testing machine, which indicated current certification by the SLD.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in admitting the results of a breath-alcohol test on the grounds that the State failed to lay an adequate foundation by not affirmatively establishing that the breath testing apparatus was situated in an approved location.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction for driving while intoxicated (DWI).

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, J. (Jonathan B. Sutin, J., and J. Miles Hanisee, J., concurring): The Court of Appeals remained unpersuaded by the Defendant's argument against the admissibility of the BAT results. The court referenced the New Mexico Supreme Court case of State v. Martinez, which established that an officer’s testimony about seeing a current certification sticker on the breath testing machine is sufficient to satisfy foundational requirements for admitting BAT results. The Court of Appeals found that Officer Carr provided such testimony, thereby laying an adequate foundation for the BAT results. Despite the Defendant's argument that the certification process does not incorporate site approval, the Court of Appeals held that the Supreme Court precedent in Martinez was controlling and suggested that any further challenge to this interpretation should be addressed to a higher tribunal.