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, Adrian Tomasiyo, was convicted for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (DWI). The conviction was based on evidence presented at trial, including field sobriety tests (FSTs). The Defendant argued that the FSTs were improperly conducted on unstable surfaces, and also highlighted the absence of a video recording of his encounter with the police, which would include the FSTs.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of San Juan County, John A. Dean, Jr., District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of DWI, particularly due to the absence of a video recording of the police encounter and the FSTs. Contended that the FSTs were conducted on unstable surfaces, making the results unreliable. Also noted that officers did not inquire about any medical conditions that could affect his performance on the FSTs, only asking about injuries.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for DWI.
• Whether the absence of a video recording of the Defendant's encounter with the police and the FSTs affects the sufficiency of the evidence for DWI conviction.
• Whether the field sobriety tests (FSTs) were improperly conducted on unstable surfaces, affecting their reliability.
• Whether the failure of the arresting officer to inquire about any medical conditions that could interfere with the Defendant's performance on the FSTs impacts the admissibility or reliability of the FST results.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's conviction of the Defendant for DWI.

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, Judge (Julie J. Vargas, Judge, and Daniel J. Gallegos, Judge, concurring):
  The Court found that substantial evidence supported the verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for the DWI conviction, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict (para 2).
  The Court addressed the Defendant's argument regarding the absence of a video recording of the FSTs, stating that the Defendant did not preserve this argument at the trial level and, therefore, it could not be considered on appeal. Additionally, the Court noted that the Defendant provided no authority to support the proposition that a DWI conviction could not be sustained without a video recording of the FSTs (paras 3-5).
  Regarding the Defendant's argument about the FSTs being conducted on unstable surfaces and the arresting officer's failure to inquire about medical conditions that could affect the FST performance, the Court found these arguments were not preserved for appeal. Furthermore, the Court explained that such issues were factors for the jury to weigh against the evidence of guilt and did not provide a basis for reversal (paras 6-7).
  The Court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and affirmed the district court's decision, stating that it does not reweigh evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the jury (para 8).