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

• In the early morning of September 21, 2013, police officers were dispatched to a house party in Alamogordo, New Mexico, due to noise complaints. The Defendant, Kenneth B. Murray, was observed by officers to be intoxicated and was later stopped for traffic violations with his ten-year-old son in the vehicle. After failing field sobriety tests, he was arrested for DWI and charged with aggravated DWI for refusing a breath test and negligent child abuse not resulting in great bodily harm or death (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the Defendant was rightfully convicted based on evidence of intoxication, including field sobriety tests, and that the Defendant willfully refused the breath test. The State also contended that the child abuse jury instruction was proper and that the Defendant received effective legal representation (paras 9-11, 13-15, 17-19, 21-25).
• Defendant-Appellant (Kenneth B. Murray): Contended that the admission of the HGN test as evidence of intoxication was plain error, there was insufficient evidence for the willful refusal element of the aggravated DWI charge, the child abuse jury instruction improperly stated the negligence standard, and that his trial counsel was ineffective (paras 9-11, 13-15, 17-19, 21-25).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court’s admission of the HGN testimony from Officer Compary was plain error.
• Whether there was substantial evidence to support the willful refusal element of the aggravated DWI charge.
• Whether the child abuse jury instruction improperly stated the required intent.
• Whether the Defendant’s trial counsel was ineffective.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's convictions for aggravated DWI and negligent child abuse not resulting in death or great bodily harm (para 26).

Reasons

• The Court, per Judge Stephen G. French, with Judges Michael E. Vigil and Henry M. Bohnhoff concurring, held that:
  The admission of the HGN testimony, while erroneous, did not constitute plain error as there was ample other evidence of the Defendant's intoxication (paras 10-12).
  There was substantial evidence to support the willful refusal element of the aggravated DWI charge, as the Defendant was conscious and capable of submitting to a chemical test but chose not to cooperate (paras 13-15).
  The child abuse jury instruction did not constitute fundamental error. Even though the instruction included "knew or should have known" language, it also contained language regarding recklessness. The court found that driving while intoxicated with a child in the vehicle constituted reckless conduct (paras 16-19).
  The Defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel. The court found that the Defendant's trial attorney's actions fell within the range of reasonable professional assistance and that any alleged errors did not prejudice the defense to the extent that the trial outcome would have been different (paras 20-25).