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 in metropolitan court for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The appeal concerns whether the Defendant's right to confront witnesses against him was violated due to the State's failure to call certain police officers as witnesses at trial.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Briana Zamora, District Judge: Affirmance of the Defendant's conviction after a bench trial in metropolitan court for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that his right to confront the witnesses against him was violated when the State failed to call Albuquerque Police Department (APD) Lieutenant Gonzales and APD Commander Miller as witnesses at trial.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's right to confront the witnesses against him was violated due to the State's failure to call certain police officers as witnesses at trial.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's affirmance of the Defendant's conviction.

Reasons

• GARCIA, Judge, with LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge, and J. MILES HANISEE, Judge concurring, found that the Defendant essentially raised the same issue on appeal as he did in his on-record appeal to the district court. The Court proposed to adopt the district court’s memorandum opinion for purposes of this appeal, noting that the district court issued a thorough, well-reasoned memorandum opinion. The Court observed that the Defendant's confrontation objection below was directed at the admission of a signed tactical plan, which had not been admitted into evidence during the trial. The Court concluded that the Defendant failed to meet his burden on appeal to demonstrate a Confrontation Clause violation and also addressed the constitutionality of the checkpoint under City of Las Cruces v. Betancourt, finding no error in the district court's determination.