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 aggravated DWI (second offense, refusal), careless driving, and no proof of insurance. The evidence presented at trial included the Defendant driving significantly over the speed limit, exhibiting signs of intoxication such as a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot and watery eyes, slurred speech, and using his vehicle for balance. Additionally, the Defendant failed to perform field sobriety tests as instructed and refused to submit to chemical testing when offered by Officer Lujan.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for aggravated DWI, citing the Defendant's excessive speed, physical signs of intoxication, failure to perform field sobriety tests, and refusal to submit to chemical testing.
• Defendant-Appellant (Anthony Read): Contended that the evidence was insufficient to prove he was driving while impaired. He highlighted inconsistencies in officers' testimonies regarding his performance on field sobriety tests, questioned the clarity of Officer Lujan's instructions, and argued that his performance on the tests reflected fatigue rather than impairment. The Defendant also suggested that his driving was not compromised, except for speeding.

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for aggravated DWI (second offense).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s affirmance of the Defendant's convictions for aggravated DWI (second offense, refusal), careless driving, and no proof of insurance.

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, J., with James J. Wechsler, J., and Roderick T. Kennedy, J., concurring: The Court found substantial evidence supporting the Defendant's conviction for DWI, including his excessive speed, physical signs of intoxication, failure to perform field sobriety tests, and refusal to submit to chemical testing. The Court rejected the Defendant's arguments for insufficient evidence, emphasizing that the fact finder is entitled to weigh the evidence and assess credibility. The Court also dismissed the Defendant's assertion that his driving was not compromised, noting that driving significantly over the speed limit while intoxicated did endanger the public. The Court concluded that the Defendant's unsatisfactory performance on field sobriety tests and other evidence of intoxication were probative of impairment, supporting his conviction for DWI.