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) following a bench trial. The conviction was based, in part, on the admission of 911 audio evidence, which the Defendant challenged as inadmissible hearsay.

Procedural History

• APPEAL FROM THE METROPOLITAN COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY: Conviction of driving while intoxicated (DWI).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the 911 audio admitted at trial constituted inadmissible hearsay because it did not fall under the present sense impression hearsay exception, citing out-of-state authority to support the argument that there was no "percipient witness" to testify to the event or condition described in the statement for it to be admitted (para 2).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the 911 audio admitted at trial constituted inadmissible hearsay.
• Whether the metropolitan court erred by considering the 911 audio to reach its verdict.
• Whether the metropolitan court erred in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress based on the reasonable suspicion issue.
• Whether the metropolitan court erred in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress based on her probable cause argument.
• Whether the metropolitan court reasonably relied on the evidence to determine that Defendant was in actual physical control of the vehicle.

Disposition

• The appeal was affirmed, upholding the Defendant's DWI conviction (para 4).

Reasons

• MEDINA, Judge (with KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge and MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge concurring): The Court was unpersuaded by the Defendant's argument regarding the inadmissibility of the 911 audio as hearsay, referencing the State Supreme Court's explanation that independent corroboration is not a foundational requirement for hearsay admission but may factor into the trial judge’s discretion (para 2). The Court also noted that the Defendant abandoned the issues raised in her docketing statement by resting on the docketing statement and not contesting them in her memorandum in opposition, leading to the conclusion that these matters were not further addressed (para 3). The decision to affirm the metropolitan court was based on the reasons stated in the notice of proposed disposition and the analysis provided in the memorandum opinion (para 4).