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 second offense driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor (DWI) under the impairment to the slightest degree standard. The conviction was based on the Defendant's statements to law enforcement, corroborated by eyewitness testimony and a home security camera video, which were used to infer that the Defendant had been driving.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Chaves County: Conviction of second offense DWI under the impairment to the slightest degree standard.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction for DWI, specifically challenging the evidence that she had been driving.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for DWI, particularly regarding the evidence that she had been driving.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment and sentence convicting the Defendant of second offense DWI under the impairment to the slightest degree standard.

Reasons

• Per J. Miles Hanisee, with Jacqueline R. Medina and Katherine A. Wray concurring: The Court remained unpersuaded by the Defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence regarding her driving. The Court highlighted that the Defendant's statements to law enforcement, corroborated by eyewitness testimony and a home security camera video, provided sufficient proof of her driving. The Court also noted that the Defendant's repetition of earlier arguments in her memorandum in opposition did not fulfill the requirement to specifically point out errors of law and fact. The decision to affirm was based on the principle that the burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law, and the Court found that the Defendant did not demonstrate error in the original judgment and sentence (paras 1-3).