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

• On August 4, 2006, a Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Deputy observed the Defendant driving over the speed limit and engaging in various traffic violations, including running a stop sign and driving through a construction zone in the opposing lane. After a failed attempt to stop the Defendant, a high-speed pursuit was deemed too risky. The Defendant eventually crashed into a curb, causing the Deputy to crash into her vehicle. At the scene, the Defendant appeared unconscious with empty beer cans in the car and exhibited signs of alcohol consumption. She admitted to drinking but could not recall the amount and refused sobriety tests. A blood draw at the hospital showed a BAC of .07 gms/100ml.

Procedural History

• Metropolitan Court: Convicted the Defendant of DWI, reckless driving, and failure to yield to emergency vehicles.
• District Court of Bernalillo County: Affirmed the convictions.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the metro court erred in admitting the SLD 705 form without the testimony of the analyst who tested her blood, claimed the form was inadmissible due to inadequate foundation, and contended there was insufficient evidence of driving under the influence of alcohol.
• Appellee (State): Defended the admission of the SLD 705 form, asserting that the foundation was adequately laid for its admission and that there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions.

Legal Issues

• Whether the metro court committed fundamental error in admitting the SLD 705 form without the testimony of the analyst who tested the Defendant's blood.
• Whether the SLD 705 form was admissible with the foundation laid by the State.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions of the Defendant for DWI, reckless driving, and failure to yield to emergency vehicles.

Reasons

• Majority Opinion by CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge (CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge concurring)
  The Court found that even if the admission of the SLD 705 form was error, it was not fundamental as there was ample evidence to support the Defendant's DWI conviction without it. The Court also held that the State had laid an adequate foundation for the admission of the 705 form and that there was sufficient evidence to establish a nexus between the Defendant's alcohol consumption and impairment. The Court applied a harmless error analysis, concluding that the error, if any, in admitting the 705 form did not affect the outcome of the trial given the overwhelming evidence of the Defendant's guilt.
  Concurring in Result Only Opinion by RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge
  Judge Kennedy concurred in the result to affirm the conviction but expressed concern over the foundation for the admission of the SLD 705 form. He argued that the testimony provided by Dr. Hwang did not sufficiently connect the blood test results to the Defendant due to a lack of direct involvement with the testing process and a gap in the chain of custody. However, he agreed that the conviction should be affirmed based on the Defendant's conduct and other evidence of impairment.