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 involved in a vehicle crash on Wyoming Boulevard in Albuquerque and was subsequently convicted of driving under the influence (DUI) under both the per se standard and the impaired-to-the-slightest-degree standard. Evidence presented at trial included observations by Officer Daniel Galvan of the Defendant's physical state and admissions of alcohol consumption, as well as standard field sobriety tests administered by Officer Neill Elsman indicating signs of intoxication (paras 4-6).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the evidence presented at trial, including the Defendant's physical condition, admissions of alcohol consumption, and performance on field sobriety tests, was sufficient to support the conviction for DUI under the impaired-to-the-slightest-degree standard (paras 4-6).
• Defendant-Appellant (Johnny Sanchez): Challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his DUI conviction, arguing that the police did not witness him driving and that he could have consumed alcohol after the crash but before the police arrived (para 7).

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for DUI under the impaired-to-the-slightest-degree standard.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction for DUI under the impaired-to-the-slightest-degree alternative (para 8).

Reasons

• J. Miles Hanisee, Chief Judge, with Kristina Bogardus, Judge, and Zachary A. Ives, Judge, concurring, found that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for DUI under the impaired-to-the-slightest-degree theory. The Court considered the Defendant's physical condition as observed by the responding officers, his admissions of alcohol consumption, and his performance on field sobriety tests. The Court also addressed the Defendant's argument regarding the lack of direct observation of him driving, noting that circumstantial evidence could support a conviction for DUI. The Court relied on precedent that changing statements to the police could evidence consciousness of guilt and that a conviction can be supported by sufficient evidence even if based on one of two alternative theories (paras 2-8).