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-Appellant, Joseph Crutcher, was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence (DWI) after failing standardized field sobriety tests (SFSTs) administered by Officer Daniel Galvan of the Albuquerque Police Department. Subsequently, the Defendant consented to a breath alcohol test (BAT), the results of which were admitted over his objection at trial in metropolitan court (para 2).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County: The district court dismissed Defendant’s on-record appeal, which challenged the admission of BAT results and the opportunity for an independent chemical test, finding that the issue raised had not been adequately preserved (para 2).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the State failed to lay a proper foundation for the admission of his BAT results by not proving the gas canister used was approved by the Scientific Laboratory Division of the Department of Health (SLD). Also contended he was not provided a reasonable opportunity to obtain an independent blood alcohol test (paras 3-4, 7).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Responded by stating the Defendant did not preserve the foundational argument before the trial court and, even if it was preserved, the State met all foundational requirements for the admission of the BAT results. Additionally, the State argued that the Defendant abandoned his second issue by not raising it in the district court (paras 4, 8).

Legal Issues

• Whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the Defendant's BAT results without evidence that the gas canister used was approved by the SLD.
• Whether the Defendant was given a reasonable opportunity to arrange for an independent chemical test (paras 3, 7).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Defendant's on-record appeal, concluding that the BAT results were properly admitted and the challenge to the reasonable opportunity for an independent chemical test was abandoned (para 12).

Reasons

• The Court, with Judge Michael D. Bustamante authoring the memorandum opinion and Judges James J. Wechsler and Timothy L. Garcia concurring, based its decision on several grounds:
  Regarding the BAT results, the Court relied on its recent decision in State v. Hobbs, which was deemed dispositive of the issue raised by the Defendant. The Court declined to revisit the precedent set by Hobbs, thereby affirming the admission of the BAT results (paras 4-6).
  Regarding the independent chemical test, the Court found that the Defendant abandoned this issue by not raising it in his on-record appeal to the district court. The Court declined to address this issue, noting that the Defendant's failure to raise it precluded review. Additionally, the Court rejected the Defendant's invitation to review the merits of his unpreserved issue under the fundamental error doctrine, concluding that the Defendant failed to demonstrate that any error, assuming it occurred, was fundamental (paras 7-11).