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 under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs (DWI) after a bench trial in metropolitan court. The conviction was based on Officer Miller's testimony regarding the Defendant's performance on field sobriety tests (FSTs), the smell of alcohol, and the Defendant's physical appearance at the time of arrest. The Defendant had moved her head contrary to instructions during the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, turned incorrectly on the walk-and-turn, put her foot down during the one-leg-stand, and performed poorly on the countdown test. Additionally, the Defendant smelled of alcohol, had bloodshot and watery eyes, and denied drinking despite these observations (para 4).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County: The district court's on-record review affirmed the metropolitan court’s denial of the Defendant's motion to suppress Officer Miller’s testimony and her DWI conviction.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the trial court's denial of her motion to suppress should be reversed, drawing analogies to factual similarities with the case State v. Le Mier. Contended that the evidence, particularly Officer Miller's testimony about the odor of alcohol, no admission of drinking, and her performance on FSTs, was insufficient to support a conviction for impaired driving (paras 2-3).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Supported the trial court's decision, emphasizing deference to the trial court's discretion in discovery sanctions and the sufficiency of evidence based on the totality of circumstances, including the Defendant's performance on FSTs, the smell of alcohol, and her physical appearance (para 2, 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the trial court's denial of the Defendant's motion to suppress Officer Miller’s testimony was proper.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for driving under the influence.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's affirmation of the metropolitan court’s denial of the Defendant's motion to suppress and her DWI conviction (para 5).

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge (MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge, and EMIL J. KIEHNE, Judge, concurring): The Court of Appeals proposed to adopt the district court's memorandum opinion with clarification regarding the application of State v. Harper and its subsequent clarification in State v. Le Mier. The Court noted the distinction between the trial court's actions in Le Mier and the present case, emphasizing deference to the trial court's discretion in imposing discovery sanctions. The Court found the Defendant's arguments against the sufficiency of the evidence unpersuasive, citing precedent that an officer does not need to observe actual impaired driving if there are reasonable grounds to believe the Defendant was intoxicated. The Court concluded that the evidence, including the Defendant's performance on FSTs, the smell of alcohol, and her physical appearance, was sufficient to support the conviction (paras 1-5).