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 of driving while intoxicated (DWI) with a blood-alcohol level of .29, based on the results of a blood test. The issue arose when the district court allowed the supervisor of the technician who actually conducted the blood test and prepared the Scientific Laboratory Division (SLD) report to testify as an expert at trial, rather than the technician who directly handled the test and report.

Procedural History

• State v. Bullcoming, 2010-NMSC-007, ¶1: The New Mexico Supreme Court applied Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts in the DWI context, influencing the initial affirmation of the Defendant's conviction.
• Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705: The United States Supreme Court reversed the defendant’s conviction and remanded the case, leading to the New Mexico Supreme Court's decision to hold the case in abeyance and subsequently remand it for further proceedings in light of its decision.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Contended that his confrontation rights were violated when the district court allowed the supervisor of the technician who conducted the blood test and prepared the SLD report to testify, instead of the technician who actually performed the test and prepared the report.
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Filed a response stating it does not contest the second calendar notice and concurs in the proposed reversal and remand of the Defendant's conviction.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's admission of the SLD test report without the testimony of the person who conducted the test and prepared the results violated the Defendant's confrontation rights.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the Defendant's conviction and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.

Reasons

• Per Jonathan B. Sutin, J. (James J. Wechsler, J., and Timothy L. Garcia, J., concurring): The Court decided to reverse the Defendant's conviction based on the Supreme Court’s opinion in Bullcoming, which held that the admission of a forensic analysis report without the testimony of the analyst who prepared the report violates the accused's confrontation rights. The State's agreement with the proposed reversal and remand further supported the Court's decision to reverse and remand for further proceedings.