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 pulled over for swerving within her lane and subsequently arrested for DWI after failing field sobriety tests and providing a single usable breath alcohol sample, which indicated a level greater than .16 grams per 210 liters of breath. The Defendant contested the admissibility of the breath test result, arguing it did not meet the Scientific Laboratory Division (SLD) standard for accuracy, which traditionally required two breath samples (para 2).

Procedural History

• Metropolitan Court of Bernalillo County: Convicted the Defendant of DWI, impaired to the slightest degree, after dismissing the aggravated DWI charge due to the reliance on a single breath sample.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the single breath test result was unreliable and inadmissible because the SLD standard for accuracy required two breath samples. Contended that the admission of the single breath test result was not harmless (paras 3, 4).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Maintained that the breath test was admissible under the current regulation, which does not strictly require two samples if a good faith attempt to collect them was made. Argued that any error in admitting the single breath test result was harmless (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the metropolitan court improperly admitted and relied on a breath test result based on a single usable breath sample.
• Whether the admission of the single breath test result was harmless error.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals held that the State did not lay a sufficient foundation to admit the breath test results under the current regulation but concluded that the error in admitting the results was harmless. The conviction for DWI, impaired to the slightest degree, was affirmed (para 1).

Reasons

• WRAY, Judge (with IVES, Judge and YOHALEM, Judge concurring):
  The Court found that the regulation requiring two breath samples had been amended to allow for a good faith attempt to collect and analyze at least two samples. Despite this, the Court determined that the State failed to establish the necessary foundation for admitting the breath test results because the officer did not make a good faith attempt to collect a third sample after the second attempt failed to produce a readable result (paras 4-10).
  The Court reviewed the admission of the single breath test result as nonconstitutional error and found it to be harmless. It emphasized that the metropolitan court did not rely on the breath test result in its verdict but instead based its decision on other evidence of the Defendant's impairment. The Court concluded that there was no reasonable probability that the admission of the breath test result affected the verdict (paras 11-15).