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 convicted for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs (DWI). The conviction was based on observations made by the arresting officer, including the Defendant's speeding, bloodshot watery eyes, slurred speech, odor of alcohol, admission to drinking, and mixed performance on field sobriety tests.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the motion to suppress should have been granted due to the State’s failure to file a written response in a timely manner and on the merits of the motion. Also contended that his right to due process was violated and challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Defended the trial court's decision to deny the motion to suppress and argued that the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction.

Legal Issues

• Whether the motion to suppress should have been granted due to the State’s failure to file its written response in a timely fashion.
• Whether the motion to suppress should have been granted on the merits.
• Whether the Defendant's right to due process was violated.
• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of the Defendant for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs.

Reasons

• YOHALEM, J., DUFFY, J., and BACA, J., concurring, provided the following reasons:
  The Court found that the district court acted within its discretion in conducting a hearing and issuing a ruling on the merits of the motion to suppress despite the State’s failure to file a written response in a timely manner, as no rule required the granting of the motion based on this procedural issue (para 3).
  The Court disagreed with the Defendant's contention that the motion to suppress should have been granted on the merits. It held that the arresting officer’s observations provided sufficient probable cause for the arrest for DWI (para 4).
  Regarding the Defendant's due process claim related to the judge's potential use of notes from the motion to suppress hearing during the bench trial, the Court found no concrete substantiation of error. It noted that the same evidence was presented in both proceedings and that the Defendant had a fair notice and full opportunity to defend on the matters at issue (para 5).
  The Court also found that the officer’s testimony and observations provided sufficient evidence to support the conviction, rejecting the Defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence and noting that the fact-finder is free to reject the Defendant’s version of the facts (para 6).