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 of aggravated DWI (with a breath alcohol content (BAC) of 0.16 or above) and failure to yield following a jury trial. The appeal focuses on the admission of the Defendant's breath alcohol test (BAT) results without proper certification evidence of the Intoxilyzer, which was not challenged by the Defendant during the trial but was brought to the district court's attention by the jury during its deliberation.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Argued that the BAT results were properly admitted into evidence despite the lack of introduction of evidence that the Intoxilyzer was certified by the SLD at the time of the test.
• Defendant-Appellant: Contended that the BAT results were improperly admitted into evidence because the State did not introduce evidence that the Intoxilyzer was certified by the SLD at the time of the test.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in admitting the BAT results without proper certification evidence of the Intoxilyzer.
• Whether the Defendant's failure to timely preserve the error regarding the admission of the BAT results precludes relief on appeal.
• Whether the sufficiency of the evidence supports the conviction for aggravated DWI.
• Whether the magistrate court erred by dismissing the Defendant's motion to suppress after the State amended the criminal complaint.
• Whether the Defendant was given proper notice of the felony DWI charge in district court.
• Whether the district court erred by instructing the jury on the uncharged lesser offense of per se DWI with a BAC of 0.08 or above.
• Whether cumulative error denied the Defendant a fair trial.

Disposition

• The district court’s judgment and sentence were affirmed.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, led by Chief Judge Roderick T. Kennedy, with Judges Michael D. Bustamante and Timothy L. Garcia concurring, held that the Defendant's failure to timely preserve the error regarding the admission of the BAT results without proper certification evidence of the Intoxilyzer precludes relief on appeal. The court found that the Defendant did not object to the admission of the BAT results based on the improper certification evidence during the trial or seek a remedy when the jury pointed out the error during its deliberation. The court also noted that the Defendant did not demonstrate that the issue was preserved for appellate review and did not argue that the error was fundamental or resulted from ineffective assistance of counsel. The court further held that the sufficiency of the evidence supports the conviction for aggravated DWI, the magistrate court did not err in dismissing the Defendant's motion to suppress, the Defendant was given proper notice of the felony DWI charge in district court, the district court did not err in instructing the jury on the uncharged lesser offense of per se DWI with a BAC of 0.08 or above, and that there was no cumulative error that denied the Defendant a fair trial.