State v. H Head
This text of State v. H Head (State v. H Head) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Mexico Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
2 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
3 Plaintiff-Appellee,
4 v. No. 28,562
5 HEBER HEAD,
6 Defendant-Appellant.
7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OTERO COUNTY 8 Jerry H. Ritter, Jr., District Judge
9 Gary K. King, Attorney General 10 Santa Fe, NM
11 for Appellee
12 Hugh W. Dangler, Chief Public Defender 13 Mary A. Barket, Assistant Appellate Defender 14 Santa Fe, NM
15 for Appellant
16 MEMORANDUM OPINION
17 SUTIN, Chief Judge.
18 Defendant appeals from a district court judgment and sentence entered after a
19 jury found him guilty of driving while intoxicated (DWI), fifth offense, and driving
20 on a revoked license. We issued a calendar notice proposing to affirm. Defendant
21 responded with a memorandum in opposition, remaining unpersuaded, we affirm. 1 EVIDENTIARY CHALLENGE
2 Defendant continues to challenge the admission of the breath-alcohol test
3 results. [MIO 7] “We review the admission of evidence under an abuse of discretion
4 standard and will not reverse in the absence of a clear abuse.” State v. Sarracino,
5 1998-NMSC-022, ¶ 20, 125 N.M. 511, 964 P.2d 72.
6 Defendant argued below that the State failed to show compliance with the
7 twenty-minute waiting period, which requires that the subject not “eat, drink or smoke
8 anything.” 7.33.2.12(B)(1) NMAC. [MIO 5] Officer Davis testified that he complied
9 with the twenty-minute waiting period before conducting the test and that the times
10 set forth in the docketing statement do not contradict this testimony. [RP 114]
11 Officer Davis testified that Defendant was under his observation during the entire
12 deprivation period and that Defendant did not have anything in his mouth. [RP 114]
13 Defendant’s argument below [RP 127] and on appeal [MIO 5, 7] relies on State v.
14 Gardner, 1998-NMCA-160, ¶ 6, 126 N.M. 125, 967 P.2d 465, for the contention that
15 the regulation was not satisfied because Officer Davis was unable to continuously
16 observe Defendant while he was in the backseat during transport. However, as we
17 observed in our calendar notice, the prior regulation discussed in Gardner required
18 “continuous observation,” see id., but this has been replaced with the requirement that
2 1 the officer ascertain that the suspect “has not had anything to eat, drink or smoke for
2 at least 20 minutes.” 7.33.2.12(B)(1) NMAC. More recently, this Court held that the
3 new version of the regulation “requires that the officer at the very least look in the
4 subject’s mouth or ask the subject if there is anything in his or her mouth. Following
5 that, it would be reasonable for an officer to conclude that a subject who is handcuffed
6 with hands behind him or her, who is confined to the backseat of a police vehicle and
7 then to the detention center, and who is in the officer’s presence during the entire time,
8 has not put anything to eat, drink, or smoke in his or her mouth.” State v. Willie,
9 2008-NMCA-030, ¶ 16, 143 N.M. 615, 179 P.3d 1223, cert. granted, 2008-
10 NMCERT-002, 143 N.M. 667, 180 P.3d 674. As indicated, Officer Davis confirmed
11 that Defendant did not have anything in his mouth [RP 114], and the facts of the case
12 are consistent with the foundational requirements discussed in Willie.
13 In his memorandum in opposition, Defendant argues, by relying on out-of-state
14 authority emphasizing continuous observation as related to the possibility of
15 regurgitation and other test-affecting conduct, that we should read the continuous-
16 observation requirement back into the new regulation and re-impose a Gardner
17 analysis. [MIO 9-16] We construe this as a request to ignore the new regulation and
18 revisit the analysis in Willie, which we decline to do. It follows that we do not need
3 1 to address Defendant’s claim that the erroneous admission of this evidence was not
2 harmless. [MIO 16]
3 SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
4 In his docketing statement, Defendant raised two issues that our calendar notice
5 consolidated as a challenge to support the sufficiency of the evidence. [DS 5] See
6 State v. Dominguez, 115 N.M. 445, 455, 853 P.2d 147, 157 (Ct. App. 1993) (“The
7 question presented by a directed verdict motion is whether there was substantial
8 evidence to support the charge.”). A sufficiency of the evidence review involves a
9 two-step process. Initially, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the
10 verdict. State v. Apodaca, 118 N.M. 762, 766, 887 P.2d 756, 760 (1994). Then the
11 appellate court must make a legal determination of “whether the evidence viewed in
12 this manner could justify a finding by any rational trier of fact that each element of the
13 crime charged has been established beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (internal
14 quotation marks and citation omitted).
15 To support the charge for DWI (fifth offense), the evidence had to show that
16 Defendant operated a motor vehicle at a time when he had an alcohol concentration
17 of .08 grams or more in two hundred ten liters of breath. [RP 65 - we note that the
18 jury was also instructed on the general “under the influence” DWI alternative, RP 64,
4 1 but the jury’s verdict indicates that it relied on the .08 alternative, RP 103] Here,
2 Officer Marc Davis testified that he observed Defendant driving and that Defendant
3 ran off of the road two to three feet as he made a turn. [RP 113] Defendant’s vehicle
4 was stopped by Officer Davis, and Defendant exhibited numerous signs of
5 intoxication as he exited the vehicle. [RP 114] Defendant was arrested, and a breath-
6 alcohol test provided two results, .22 and .23. [RP 123] Although the number of prior
7 offenses involves a sentencing challenge, see State v. Anaya, 1997-NMSC-010, ¶¶
8 11-14, 123 N.M. 14, 933 P.2d 223, as opposed to a sufficiency challenge, we note that
9 Defendant did not contest his prior convictions. [RP 137] Based on the foregoing,
10 we conclude that the evidence supports Defendant’s DWI conviction. In our calendar
11 notice, we also stated that, to the extent that Defendant may also be challenging his
12 conviction for driving on a revoked license [RP 66], the record indicates that sufficient
13 evidence was presented. [RP 121-22]
14 In his memorandum in opposition, Defendant predicates his sufficiency
15 challenge on the claim that the breath-alcohol test results could not be used to support
16 the conviction. [MIO 18-19] But cf. State v. Post, 109 N.M. 177, 181, 783 P.2d 487,
17 491 (Ct. App. 1989) (noting that erroneously admitted evidence may be considered
18 for purposes of sufficiency review). Because we have affirmed the admission of the
5 1 test results, it follows that we are not persuaded by Defendant’s memorandum. See
2 State v. Sisneros, 98 N.M. 201, 202-03, 647 P.2d 403, 404-05 (1982) (“The opposing
3 party to summary disposition must come forward and specifically point out errors in
4 fact and in law.”).
5 For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State v. H Head, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-h-head-nmctapp-2009.