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 in the driver's seat of a van parked on a roadside near Hobbs, New Mexico, with his girlfriend and her four young children. The van was not running, and the keys were not in the ignition. After being called to investigate a possible domestic incident, law enforcement suspected the Defendant of intoxication. He admitted to consuming alcohol, failed field sobriety tests, and was arrested for DWI, refusing chemical testing. He was charged with aggravated DWI, negligent child abuse not resulting in great bodily harm or death, and resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Lea County, Don Maddox, District Judge.
• Certiorari Denied, August 29, 2011, No. 33,163.
• Released for Publication October 11, 2011.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued there was insufficient evidence to prove actual driving while impaired or endangerment of the children’s lives.
• Appellee: Contended that circumstantial evidence indicated the Defendant drove the van while impaired and that his actions placed the children in a situation that endangered their lives.

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions for aggravated DWI and child abuse.
• Whether the Defendant resisted arrest in violation of the law.

Disposition

• The aggravated DWI and child abuse convictions were reversed due to insufficient evidence.
• The conviction for resisting arrest was affirmed, and the case was remanded for resentencing on this sole count.

Reasons

• CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge, with JAMES J. WECHSLER and RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judges concurring: The court found insufficient evidence to support the aggravated DWI conviction because there was no proof that the Defendant drove while impaired or that his impairment and driving overlapped (paras 4-15). Similarly, the child abuse conviction was reversed because the potential for harm based on the possibility of the Defendant driving while impaired was deemed theoretical and not a substantial and foreseeable risk as required by law (paras 16-22). However, the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for resisting arrest, as it showed the Defendant vigorously resisted the deputies (paras 23-24).