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 arrested and charged with DWI and failure to maintain a traffic lane after being observed veering into an adjacent lane three times and exhibiting signs of alcohol consumption. During the trial, the Defendant attempted to challenge the reliability of the breath alcohol test through expert testimony, which was restricted by the court (paras 2-7).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, Kenneth H. Martinez, District Judge: Affirmed the metropolitan court’s sentencing order entered upon the conviction of the Defendant for DWI (para 9).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee: Argued that the trial court did not err in its decisions regarding the exclusion of expert testimony and the admission of breath test results, and that the conviction was supported by substantial evidence (para 10).
• Defendant-Appellant: Contended that the metropolitan court improperly excluded expert testimony, improperly admitted the breath test results, and that the conviction was not supported by substantial evidence (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the metropolitan court improperly excluded expert testimony.
• Whether the metropolitan court improperly admitted the breath test results.
• Whether the Defendant’s conviction is supported by substantial evidence.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment, which had affirmed the metropolitan court’s sentencing order convicting the Defendant of DWI (para 13).

Reasons

• The Court, with opinions by Judges M. Monica Zamora, Michael D. Bustamante, and a specially concurring opinion by Judge Roderick T. Kennedy, held that the Defendant did not preserve error on the issues of excluding expert testimony and admitting breath test results for appeal. The Court declined to address these arguments due to the lack of objections at trial and the absence of claims of fundamental or plain error on appeal. Regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, the Court found that the evidence presented at trial, including Officer Schwartz’s testimony and the breath alcohol test results, was sufficient to support the conviction for per se DWI. Judge Kennedy, in his specially concurring opinion, noted that while there was prejudicial error in restricting the Defendant’s right to impeach the breath test machine and in the erroneous curative jury instruction, the Defendant’s failure to preserve these errors and the sufficiency of the remaining evidence precluded a finding of fundamental error (paras 10-19).