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 case involves the admissibility of blood test results in a legal proceeding. The district court had previously ruled these results inadmissible, misunderstanding the precedent set by State v. Adams and the statutory provisions of NMSA 1978, Section 66-8-103 (1978) (para 1).

Procedural History

• State v. Adams, 2019-NMCA-043, 447 P.3d 1142: The Court of Appeals determined that the district court erred in ruling the blood test results at issue were inadmissible.
• State v. Adams, 2022-NMSC-008, 503 P.3d 1130: The Supreme Court of New Mexico issued an opinion that addressed the legal issue presented in the current case.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Petitioner: Argued for the review of the Court of Appeals' determination regarding the admissibility of blood test results, suggesting that the district court's ruling was based on a misapprehension of legal precedents and statutory provisions.
• Plaintiff-Respondent: Supported the Court of Appeals' determination that the district court erred in its ruling on the admissibility of the blood test results.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in ruling the blood test results inadmissible based on a misapprehension of State v. Adams and NMSA 1978, Section 66-8-103 (1978).

Disposition

• The memorandum opinion of the Court of Appeals is affirmed, and the matter is remanded to the district court for further proceedings in accordance with the Supreme Court's opinion in Adams, 2022-NMSC-008 (para 6).

Reasons

• Per MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Justice, with C. SHANNON BACON, Justice, DAVID K. THOMSON, Justice, and JULIE J. VARGAS, Justice concurring: The Supreme Court granted the petition for writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' determination. The case was held in abeyance pending the disposition of State v. Adams, which addressed the legal issue at hand. The Court concluded that the issue was resolved by its opinion in Adams and decided to affirm the Court of Appeals' memorandum opinion by a nonprecedential order, remanding the matter for further proceedings consistent with its decision in Adams (paras 1-6). BRIANA H. ZAMORA, Justice, did not participate.