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 found guilty of DWI per se following a jury trial. The conviction was based, in part, on the admission of a breath-alcohol-test (BAT) card containing the Defendant's test results.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Kenneth H. Martinez, District Judge: Affirmed the metropolitan court’s sentencing order pursuant to a jury trial where the Defendant was found guilty of DWI per se.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the trial court erred in admitting the BAT card containing his test results into evidence and contended that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for DWI per se.
• Appellee: Maintained that the foundational requirements for the admission of the BAT card were met and that there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction.

Legal Issues

• Whether the trial court erred in admitting the BAT card containing the Defendant's test results into evidence.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for DWI per se.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the metropolitan court’s sentencing order.

Reasons

• Per Cynthia A. Fry, J. (Michael D. Bustamante, J., and Linda M. Vanzi, J., concurring):
  The Court of Appeals was unpersuaded by the Defendant's arguments against the admission of the BAT card and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his DWI per se conviction. The Court held that the State met the foundational requirements for the admission of the BAT card, thus the district court did not err in its admission (para 3). Furthermore, the Court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction, as the Defendant's account of the evidence did not contradict the facts relied upon in the Court's proposed analysis, nor did it present any new factual or legal arguments that could persuade the Court otherwise (para 5).