AI Generated Opinion Summaries

Decision Information

City of Rio Rancho v. Uribe (AI Generated Opinion Summaries)

Collection AI Generated Opinion Summaries
Date 02/12/2012
Docket Numbers 31,494
Relations See full-text opinion - City of Rio Rancho v. Uribe - 02/12/2012 - Unreported Opinions

Decision Content

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 case involves the Respondent-Appellant (Defendant) being convicted for speeding, specifically traveling at between 31 and 35 miles per hour over the speed limit. The evidence against the Defendant included the testimony of a police officer who, while stationary, observed the Defendant pass by on his motorcycle and subsequently followed and paced him at a speed of 60 miles per hour.

Procedural History

  • [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

  • Respondent-Appellant: Argued that the police officer’s testimony regarding the speed at which the Defendant was traveling should be discredited due to physical impossibility.
  • Petitioner-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

  • Whether the police officer's testimony provided sufficient evidence to affirm the Defendant's conviction for speeding.

Disposition

  • The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction for speeding.

Reasons

  • MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge (CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge, TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge concurring): The Court considered the Defendant's argument against the credibility of the police officer's testimony but found it unpersuasive. The Defendant failed to present the argument of physical impossibility to the fact finder at trial, which is necessary to preserve an issue for appeal. Even if the Defendant had properly challenged the officer's testimony, it is within the fact finder's purview to resolve conflicts in testimony and determine credibility. The appellate court found no inherent improbability in the officer's testimony that he followed and paced the Defendant at 60 miles per hour. Without evidence to the contrary, the Court could not deem the officer's testimony physically impossible. Therefore, the Court concluded there was sufficient evidence to establish that the Defendant was speeding more than 30 miles per hour over the limit and affirmed the conviction.
 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.