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 in metropolitan court for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (DWI). She contended that the court erred by applying an incorrect definition of "recklessness" in the context of her duress defense and by making an improper credibility determination based on insufficient evidence.

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: Affirmed the metropolitan court's conviction of the Defendant for DWI.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the term "recklessness" had not been previously construed in the context of a duress defense in New Mexico and that a definition from a child abuse case should be applied. Contended that the metropolitan court's rejection of her defense for insufficient evidence, based on the court's credibility determination, was improper when the wrong legal standard may have been applied.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the term "recklessness" in the context of a duress defense to a DWI charge was properly construed.
• Whether the metropolitan court's rejection of the Defendant's duress defense, based on its credibility determination, was proper when the alleged wrong definition of "recklessness" was applied.

Disposition

• The appeal was affirmed, maintaining the Defendant's conviction for DWI.

Reasons

• Per Julie J. Vargas, J., with J. Miles Hanisee, Chief Judge, and Jennifer L. Attrep, Judge, concurring:
  The Court found that the first issue regarding the construction of the term "recklessness" was not properly preserved below and thus would not be considered (para 2).
  The Court agreed with the district court's factual presentation, analysis, and conclusion regarding the second issue, adopting the district court’s memorandum opinion for purposes of that issue on appeal. It was determined that as the fact-finder determines weight and credibility, and the Defendant’s duress defense was predicated on her credibility, the metropolitan court’s rejection of her defense based on its assessment of her credibility was proper (para 2).
  The Defendant's assertion that her unpreserved issue was one of fundamental error and thus reviewable was considered but ultimately found unpersuasive. The Court held that the Defendant did not demonstrate how the failure to apply a specific definition from a child abuse case to her duress defense amounted to a fundamental unfairness or otherwise shocked the conscience (para 3).
  Despite the Defendant's continued argument that the metropolitan court used an erroneous definition of recklessness and did not make a credibility determination, the Court found her arguments unconvincing. The Defendant's description of the metropolitan court's skepticism about her defense did not support her claim that an erroneous legal standard was applied or that the district court erred in affirming the metropolitan court (para 4).