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 by a jury for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (DWI), with an alcohol concentration of eight one hundredths or more in the person’s blood or breath, resulting from alcohol consumed before or while driving the vehicle (para 2).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of San Juan County: The Defendant's conviction for DWI was affirmed.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the DWI conviction, specifically challenging the admission of the breath alcohol test (BAT) results as fundamentally unfair due to the officer's lack of knowledge on the intoxilyzer's internal workings, which allegedly discredited his testimony on its proper function (paras 3-4).
• Appellee (State of New Mexico): Contended that the BAT results were valid as the officer testified the intoxilyzer was certified, he was certified to operate it, the intoxilyzer ran the calibration check, and it operated as it should, thereby supporting the conviction (para 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's DWI conviction (para 2).
• Whether the admission of the breath alcohol test (BAT) results constituted fundamental error (para 3).

Disposition

• The motion to amend the docketing statement was denied as nonviable, and the Defendant’s conviction was affirmed (paras 3, 7).

Reasons

• The Court, comprising Judge Julie J. Vargas, Judge Jennifer L. Attrep, and Judge Zachary A. Ives, provided several reasons for its decision:
  The Court found the issue regarding the admission of the BAT results not viable for amendment in the docketing statement, as the Defendant did not present evidence to contradict the reliability of the BAT results validated by the officer's testimony (para 4).
  The Court rejected the Defendant's argument that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction based on the premise that DWI required proof of intentional action, clarifying that DWI is a strict liability crime and the jury instructions did not add an essential element to the crime (para 5).
  The Court emphasized that it does not weigh evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the fact finder as long as there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict, dismissing the Defendant's assertions regarding the lack of direct evidence of alcohol consumption and the officer's knowledge of the intoxilyzer's internal workings as matters going to the weight of the evidence (para 6).