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 found guilty of driving while intoxicated (DWI) to the slightest degree after being observed by an officer at a gas station with bloodshot, watery eyes, an empty bottle in the vehicle, and admitting to drinking and driving. The Defendant performed poorly on a field sobriety test and refused a breath test, leading to a blood draw that showed a blood alcohol content (BAC) of .24, three times the legal limit (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of San Juan County, John A. Dean Jr., District Judge, where the Defendant was found guilty of DWI (slightest degree).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction for DWI and contended that the BAC test results should not have been considered without expert relation-back testimony (paras 2, 4).
• Appellee (State): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for DWI to the slightest degree.
• Whether the BAC test results should have been considered in the absence of expert relation-back testimony.

Disposition

• The conviction for DWI (slightest degree) was affirmed, and the case was remanded for correction of a clerical error in the judgment regarding the statutory reference (para 5).

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Jonathan B. Sutin, Michael D. Bustamante, and Linda M. Vanzi, found that there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for DWI to the slightest degree. The Court considered the officer's observations, the Defendant's admission of drinking and driving, the presence of an empty bottle in the vehicle, the Defendant's performance on field sobriety tests, and the BAC results. The Court also held that expert relation-back testimony was unnecessary for a "slightest degree" DWI case, distinguishing it from a "per se" DWI case. Finally, the Court noted a clerical error in the judgment regarding the statutory reference and remanded for correction, affirming the conviction based on the "slightest degree" alternative rather than the "per se" DWI alternative (paras 2-5).