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 for DWI, improper left turn, and failure to maintain traffic lane. The conviction was based on evidence including the Defendant's driving behavior, performance on field sobriety tests (FSTs), and blood alcohol content (BAC) results of .06/.05 (para 2).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, Jacqueline D. Flores, District Judge: Affirmed the metropolitan court’s sentencing order convicting the Defendant for DWI, improper left turn, and failure to maintain traffic lane.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the DWI conviction under the "impaired to the slightest degree" standard, contending that her driving did not indicate impairment, her conduct during the stop was not indicative of impairment, her performance on the FSTs did not demonstrate impairment, and highlighted her BAC results of .06/.05 (paras 2-3, 5).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for DWI under the "impaired to the slightest degree" standard (para 2).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the metropolitan court’s sentencing order convicting the Defendant for DWI, improper left turn, and failure to maintain traffic lane (para 7).

Reasons

• Per Cynthia A. Fry, J. (Jonathan B. Sutin, J., and M. Monica Zamora, J., concurring): The Court found the district court's memorandum opinion, which the Defendant appealed from, to be thorough and accurate, addressing all matters raised in the current appeal. The Court saw no material distinction between the facts as set forth by the district court and those presented by the Defendant in her response. The Court also agreed with the district court's interpretation of the State's burden of proof, the standard of review, and the principles regarding deference to the fact-finder's role in weighing evidence and resolving matters of credibility. Despite the Defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, particularly criticizing the reliability of FST results in measuring impairment, the Court noted that the district court had appropriately addressed these concerns. The Court referenced case law supporting the view that an officer’s observations during FSTs and other evidence such as erratic driving, odor of alcohol, bloodshot and watery eyes, slurred speech, and BAC results are probative of impairment. Consequently, the Court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the DWI conviction (paras 1-7).