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 DWI (first offense), no insurance, and no driver’s license. The conviction for DWI was based on the statute prohibiting driving while impaired to the slightest degree. An officer observed the Defendant's vehicle drifting into other lanes of traffic on three occasions before pulling back into its own lane. Upon stopping the vehicle and identifying the Defendant as the driver, the officer noted an odor of alcohol, bloodshot and watery eyes, and the Defendant admitted to consuming an alcoholic beverage. Field sobriety tests were administered, and the Defendant's performance was consistent with being under the influence of intoxicating liquor.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the DWI conviction, arguing that breath tests showed readings within legal limits, the calibration check on the test result was higher than .08, the officer detected only a “fair” odor of alcohol, his driving did not affect other traffic, and his performance on the field sobriety tests was not entirely unsuccessful.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Argued that the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's DWI conviction, citing the Defendant's erratic driving, the smell of alcohol, bloodshot and watery eyes, admission of drinking alcohol, and performance on field sobriety tests as indicative of impairment.

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for DWI.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s affirmance of the Defendant's convictions for DWI, no insurance, and no driver’s license.

Reasons

• Per Cynthia A. Fry, J. (Michael E. Vigil, J., and Timothy L. Garcia, J., concurring): The Court held that the fact finder could reasonably rely on the behavioral evidence presented to convict the Defendant of DWI. It was noted that substantial evidence, such as the Defendant's erratic driving, the smell of alcohol, bloodshot and watery eyes, admission of drinking alcohol, and performance on field sobriety tests, supported the conviction. The Court rejected the Defendant's arguments that countervailing considerations undermined the sufficiency of the State’s evidence, stating that such arguments invited the Court to re-weigh the evidence, which it cannot do. The Court also disagreed with the Defendant's assertion that field sobriety tests are not probative of impairment, explaining that the tests were designed to correlate with specific blood alcohol concentrations and that the Defendant's performance on these tests, along with other evidence, was probative of impairment.