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 aggravated driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (4th offense). The appeal challenges the district court's decisions regarding juror disqualification and the admissibility of intoxilizer machine results.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by not disqualifying juror Karen Ratliff, whose son worked for the district attorney's office, claiming a potential bias. Additionally, contended that Officer James Valdez should not have been allowed to testify to the results of the auto intoxilizer machine.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: The specific arguments of the Plaintiff-Appellee are not detailed in the provided text.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to disqualify a juror for cause based on her son's employment with the district attorney's office.
• Whether the district court erred in allowing testimony regarding the results of the auto intoxilizer machine.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's convictions.

Reasons

• Per MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, J. (JONATHAN B. SUTIN, J., and J. MILES HANISEE, J., concurring):
  The court reviewed the Defendant's challenge under an abuse of discretion standard, finding no abuse in the trial court's decision not to disqualify juror Karen Ratliff. The Defendant acknowledged the lack of evidence showing Ms. Ratliff's son's involvement in the case or her inability to remain impartial. The court found the Defendant's arguments insufficient to establish implied juror bias, citing precedent that indirect relationships do not automatically imply juror bias. Regarding the testimony of Officer James Valdez about the intoxilizer machine results, the court dismissed the Defendant's arguments, affirming the decision to allow the testimony based on previously stated reasons in their second notice of proposed summary disposition.