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 case involves the admissibility of blood test results in a legal proceeding. The district court had previously ruled these results inadmissible, misunderstanding the application of State v. Adams and relevant statutes.

Procedural History

• Court of Appeals: Determined the district court erred in ruling the blood test results inadmissible due to a misapprehension of State v. Adams and NMSA 1978, Section 66-8-103 (1978).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Petitioner: Sought review of the Court of Appeals' determination, arguing presumably against the admissibility of the blood test results based on the district court's interpretation.
• Plaintiff-Respondent: Argued in favor of the Court of Appeals' decision, supporting the admissibility of the blood test results and opposing the district court's misinterpretation.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in ruling the blood test results inadmissible by misapprehending State v. Adams and NMSA 1978, Section 66-8-103 (1978).

Disposition

• The memorandum opinion of the Court of Appeals is affirmed, and the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings in accordance with the Supreme Court's opinion in Adams, 2022-NMSC-008.

Reasons

• Per VIGIL, Chief Justice, with C. SHANNON BACON, Justice, DAVID K. THOMSON, Justice, and JULIE J. VARGAS, Justice concurring:
  The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' determination regarding the admissibility of blood test results. The review was held in abeyance pending the disposition of a related case, State v. Adams. Following the Court's decision in Adams, which addressed the legal issue presented in this case, the Supreme Court concluded that the legal issue was resolved. The Court exercised its discretion to dispose of the case by a nonprecedential order rather than a formal opinion, affirming the Court of Appeals' memorandum opinion and remanding the matter to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the Adams decision (paras 1-6). BRIANA H. ZAMORA, Justice, did not participate in the decision.