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 DWI, impaired to the slightest degree, after being observed swerving sharply to the left and into the oncoming traffic lane while driving, then swerving back into the correct lane. The Defendant admitted to the officer that the swerving occurred because he was distracted by flirting with his passenger. Additionally, evidence of impairment included the Defendant's admission of consuming alcohol, bloodshot and watery eyes, slurred speech, difficulty exiting the vehicle, and poor performance on field sobriety tests (FSTs).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Ted Baca, District Judge: Affirmed the conviction for DWI, impaired to the slightest degree, in an on-record appeal from metropolitan court.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the officer made a mistake of law in charging him based on a single instance of moving out of his lane when there were no lane markings and contended that the evidence was insufficient to support his DWI conviction.
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Maintained that the officer had reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop based on the Defendant's violation of traffic laws and argued that sufficient evidence supported the Defendant's DWI conviction.

Legal Issues

• Whether the officer made a mistake of law in charging the Defendant with a violation based on a single instance of moving out of his lane when there were no lane markings.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for DWI.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order affirming the Defendant's conviction for DWI, impaired to the slightest degree.

Reasons

• Per JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge (RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge, and MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge concurring):
  The Court found that the officer's belief that the Defendant violated the city ordinance was irrelevant because the officer had reasonable suspicion to believe that the Defendant’s driving violated another law, specifically Section 66-7-308(A), which requires vehicles to be driven on the right half of the roadway (paras 3-4).
  The Court held that the officer's observation of the Defendant swerving sharply to the left and then back into the correct lane was sufficient to support a reasonable suspicion of a violation of Section 66-7-308(A), even in the absence of lane markings and despite the Defendant's argument that swerving once is neutral conduct (paras 3-4).
  The Court also determined that sufficient evidence supported the Defendant's DWI conviction, citing observations of poor driving, signs of alcohol consumption, and poor performance on FSTs as contributing factors (paras 5-7).
  The Court declined to address the Defendant's challenge to the efficacy of FSTs in general to show impairment, as this issue was not raised at trial (para 8).