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

• Matthew Wauneka (Defendant) was convicted for DWI (slightest degree). The case involves a nine-month delay between his arrest and his jury trial in district court. The Defendant also resolved traffic citations in magistrate court prior to the DWI charge being pursued in district court. During the trial, the district court made a comment to defense counsel to "hurry up" during the defense case-in-chief. The officer performed multiple field sobriety tests, which the Defendant performed poorly on, indicating signs of physical impairment.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the six-month rule was violated, double jeopardy was violated by pursuing the DWI charge in district court after resolving traffic citations in magistrate court, the district court's comment to "hurry up" was prejudicial, and he was entitled to a jury instruction that indications of impairment on field sobriety tests should not be equated with impairment to drive.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the six-month rule was violated.
• Whether double jeopardy was violated by pursuing the DWI charge in district court after resolving traffic citations in magistrate court.
• Whether the district court's comment to defense counsel to "hurry up" was prejudicial.
• Whether the Defendant was entitled to a jury instruction that indications of impairment on field sobriety tests should not be equated with impairment to drive.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction for DWI (slightest degree).

Reasons

• Per RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge (CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge, and CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge concurring):
  Regarding the six-month rule, the Court applied the new Rule 5-604 NMRA, which includes a multi-factor test for cases of concurrent jurisdiction that are refiled in district court. The Court found no error in the district court's application of this rule despite a nine-month delay between arrest and trial, referencing State v. Garza's twelve-month presumptive period for prejudice in simple cases.
  On the issue of double jeopardy, the Court declined to consider monetary penalties as punishment for the purposes of double jeopardy, aligning with State v. Kirby, and thus found no violation.
  The Court found the district court's comment to "hurry up" not to be reversible under fundamental error analysis, citing the court's inherent authority to control proceedings and the lack of a timely objection by the Defendant.
  For the jury instruction issue, the Court distinguished the case from State v. Lasworth, which was limited to the HGN test, noting that the Defendant performed poorly on multiple field sobriety tests indicating physical impairment. The Court deemed any error in not providing the specific jury instruction as harmless given the evidence presented.