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

• On September 19, 2013, the defendant was stopped by state police for multiple traffic violations and admitted to drinking "two beers." The defendant performed poorly on field sobriety tests and registered a breath alcohol concentration (BAC) of .08. The State charged the defendant with several traffic offenses, including misdemeanor DWI, under two statutory alternative means: driving with a BAC of .08 or higher (a per se violation) and driving while "under the influence" of intoxicating liquor or drugs (an impaired to the slightest degree violation) (para 3).

Procedural History

• District Court of McKinley County, Grant L. Foutz, District Judge: The defendant was convicted in a nonjury trial for DWI based explicitly on the per se provision of the statute. The judgment did not refer to the impaired DWI provision (para 4).
• Court of Appeals of New Mexico, 2015-NMCA-118, 362 P.3d 180: On de novo appeal, the defendant was acquitted of the per se violation but convicted of the impaired DWI under the alternative provision. The defendant contended that double jeopardy and jurisdictional principles were violated by this retrial and conviction on the impaired theory (paras 2, 5).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the magistrate court's silence on the impaired DWI provision impliedly acquitted him of that charge, thus barring retrial on that theory due to double jeopardy. Additionally, contended that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the impaired DWI theory as it was not ruled on in the magistrate court (paras 5, 20).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the magistrate court's silence on the impaired DWI provision impliedly acquitted the defendant of that charge, thus barring retrial on that theory due to double jeopardy principles.
• Whether the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the impaired DWI theory on de novo appeal.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's conviction of the defendant for impaired DWI, rejecting the defendant's arguments regarding double jeopardy and jurisdiction (para 21).

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Judge (JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge, TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge concurring):
  The court held that appeals from inferior tribunals to district courts are tried anew, as if no trial had been had below, subject to the Constitutions of the United States and New Mexico, which protect against double jeopardy. The court found that jeopardy attached at the nonjury trial in the magistrate court when evidence was first heard (paras 6-9).
  The court reasoned that a conviction on one theory of DWI does not constitute an implied acquittal on the alternative theory not ruled upon, aligning with the majority of jurisdictions and Supreme Court precedents. The court distinguished between retrial after an acquittal and retrial after a conviction reversed for trial error, applying the doctrine of continuing jeopardy (paras 10-19).
  The court concluded that the district court had jurisdiction to conduct a new trial de novo on the merits, including the impaired DWI theory, as the only potential limitation—double jeopardy—was not violated (para 20).