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 driving while intoxicated (DWI), impaired to the slightest degree. The State's evidence included observations of the Defendant traveling significantly below the speed limit, swerving, and crossing lane-line markers multiple times. Upon being stopped, the Defendant exhibited signs of intoxication such as bloodshot and watery eyes, a strong odor of alcohol, and slurred speech. The Defendant did not respond when asked if she had consumed any beverages and showed signs of intoxication during field sobriety tests (paras 3-4).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Samuel L. Winder, District Judge: Affirmed the conviction for driving while intoxicated (DWI), impaired to the slightest degree, in an on-record appeal from metropolitan court.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Contended that there was insufficient evidence to support the DWI conviction and argued that the conviction violates federal and state due process because the State failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (paras 2).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's DWI conviction, presenting observations of the Defendant's driving behavior, physical appearance, and performance on field sobriety tests as evidence (paras 3-4).

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's DWI conviction.
• Whether the Defendant's conviction for DWI violates federal and state due process rights due to alleged insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (paras 2, 8-9).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals of New Mexico affirmed the district court’s judgment affirming the Defendant's conviction for driving while intoxicated (DWI), impaired to the slightest degree (para 11).

Reasons

• MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge (RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge, J. MILES HANISEE, Judge concurring):
  The Court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's DWI conviction, referencing the State's evidence of the Defendant's driving behavior, physical appearance, and performance on field sobriety tests. The Court compared the case to State v. Neal, where similar evidence was deemed sufficient for a DWI conviction, and found the Defendant's attempts to distinguish her case unpersuasive (paras 3-5). The Court emphasized that evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, supporting the jury's determination that the Defendant was driving while intoxicated (paras 6-7). Regarding the due process claim, the Court noted the Defendant did not provide new legal arguments or show how due process arguments were preserved below. Since the Court found sufficient evidence for the conviction, it concluded that the Defendant's due process rights were not violated (paras 8-10).