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 by a jury for one count of criminal sexual penetration and one count of aggravated driving while under the influence of liquor or drugs. The Defendant appealed these convictions, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Otero County, Angie K. Schneider, District Judge, May 20, 2019: The Defendant was convicted for one count of criminal sexual penetration and one count of aggravated driving while under the influence of liquor or drugs.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The Defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions, challenging the sufficiency of the trial evidence and contesting the reliability of the Blood Alcohol Test (BAT) results.
• Appellee: The State maintained that there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions, including the admission of the BAT results into evidence, which indicated the Defendant had a .18 BAC, and other trial evidence supporting the charges.

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions for one count of criminal sexual penetration and one count of aggravated driving while under the influence of liquor or drugs.
• Whether the Court could rely on the Blood Alcohol Test (BAT) results as part of the evidence supporting the Defendant's conviction for aggravated driving under the influence.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's convictions for one count of criminal sexual penetration and one count of aggravated driving while under the influence of liquor or drugs.

Reasons

• Per JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge (MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge, and BRIANA H. ZAMORA, Judge concurring):
  The Court considered the Defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions. The Defendant's memorandum in opposition did not successfully point out any specific errors in fact or law regarding the proposed disposition by the Court, which had already outlined the trial evidence supporting the convictions. The Court was not persuaded by the Defendant's arguments, particularly regarding the BAT results, noting that the State had properly moved to admit the BAT results into evidence, which were stipulated by the defense counsel and admitted by the district court. Testimony was also presented indicating the Defendant had a .18 BAC on properly calibrated equipment. Based on these considerations, along with the reasons provided in the notice of proposed disposition, the Court affirmed the Defendant's convictions (paras 1-4).