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 involved in an accident and subsequently charged with second degree homicide by vehicle. Following the incident, her blood was drawn at a hospital by a phlebotomist employed by a contracted laboratory, to test her blood alcohol content. The Defendant challenged the qualifications of the phlebotomist to conduct the draw under the relevant state statute.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the phlebotomist was not qualified to draw her blood under NMSA 1978, Section 66-8-103, because the phlebotomist was not directly employed by a hospital or physician. Also contended that her crime should not be designated as a serious violent offense under the Earned Meritorious Deductions Act (EMDA) as it is not defined as such within the Act (paras 2-3, 5-6).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: The specific arguments of the Plaintiff-Appellee are not detailed in the provided text, but it can be inferred that the Plaintiff-Appellee opposed the Defendant-Appellant's motions and supported the trial court's decisions.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to exclude blood alcohol content test results based on the qualifications of the phlebotomist under NMSA 1978, Section 66-8-103.
• Whether the district court erred in designating the Defendant's crime a serious violent offense under the EMDA, given that her offense is not defined as such in the Act.

Disposition

• Affirmed the district court’s denial of the Defendant's motion to exclude the blood test results.
• Reversed the district court’s determination that the Defendant's crime is a serious violent offense under the EMDA.

Reasons

• ATTREP, Judge (J. MILES HANISEE, Chief Judge and JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge concurring):
  The Court found that the phlebotomist was qualified under Section 66-8-103 to perform the blood draw because they possessed the requisite training and experience, and were employed by a hospital or physician through a contractual relationship with TriCore, which ran the hospital’s laboratory services. This decision was supported by precedent in State v. Warford, which addressed a similar challenge under nearly identical circumstances (paras 2-4).
  Regarding the designation of the Defendant's crime as a serious violent offense under the EMDA, the Court reversed the district court's decision, citing State v. Montano. It was held that second degree homicide by vehicle is not defined as a serious violent offense under the EMDA, and thus, those convicted of this offense should be considered nonviolent offenders for the purposes of the Act (paras 5-6).
  The Court affirmed part of the district court's decision and reversed another, remanding for correction of the Defendant's sentence in accordance with its findings and the precedent set in Montano (para 7).