The slip opinion is the first version of an opinion released by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals. Once an opinion is selected for publication by the Court, it is assigned a vendor-neutral citation by the Clerk of the Court for compliance with Rule 23-112 NMRA, authenticated and formally published. The slip opinion may contain deviations from the formal authenticated opinion.
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
2 Opinion Number:__________ 3 Filing Date: March 20, 2025 4 No. A-1-CA-41037 5 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 6 Plaintiff-Appellee, 7 v. 8 EVERETT MULTINE, 9 Defendant-Appellant.
10 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN JUAN COUNTY 11 Daylene A. Marsh, District Court Judge
12 Raúl Torrez, Attorney General 13 Santa Fe, NM 14 Walter Hart, Assistant Attorney General 15 Albuquerque, NM
16 for Appellee
17 Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender 18 Melanie C. McNett, Assistant Appellate Defender 19 Santa Fe, NM
20 for Appellant 1 OPINION 2 IVES, Judge. 3 {1} A jury found Defendant Everett Multine guilty of driving while under the 4 influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs (DWI), contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 5 66-8-102(A) or (B) (2016). Defendant argues on appeal, as he did at trial, that the 6 district court violated Article VII, Section 3 of the New Mexico Constitution by 7 seating a juror without providing her with a Navajo language interpreter. See State 8 v. Singleton, 2001-NMCA-054, ¶ 9, 130 N.M. 583, 28 P.3d 1124 (holding that 9 defendants have standing to protect the rights of an excluded juror under Article VII, 10 Section 3). The State argues that the district court’s denial of an interpreter was based 11 on an unstated factual finding that the juror’s expressed need for an interpreter was 12 not credible—a finding that the State argues is entitled to deference on appeal. We 13 recognize that the determination about whether a juror needs an interpreter requires 14 fact-finding by the trial court about whether a juror can meaningfully participate in 15 the proceedings without an interpreter—findings that are owed deference on appeal 16 under the ordinary substantial evidence standard of review. However, the record 17 does not establish that any such findings were made by the district court in this case. 18 When a question about the need for an interpreter arises, and a trial court requires a 19 person to serve on a jury but refuses to provide an interpreter, the court must give a 20 reasoned explanation on the record that is legally adequate to justify the refusal.
1 Because the district court did not provide a reasoned explanation to support a 2 conclusion that the juror in this case could meaningfully participate without an 3 interpreter, we hold that the district court erred, and Defendant’s conviction 4 therefore cannot stand. 5 {2} However, we are unpersuaded by Defendant’s other arguments. We disagree 6 with Defendant that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress 7 evidence, that the evidence presented at trial is insufficient to support his conviction, 8 and that the district court erred by denying his motion to sanction the State by 9 excluding its expert testimony. 10 {3} We therefore reverse Defendant’s conviction and remand for a new trial. 11 BACKGROUND 12 {4} This case arises out of a traffic stop that took place in Farmington, New 13 Mexico, after Deputy Anthony Sanchez “observed traffic violations” by Defendant. 14 Specifically, he “observed [Defendant’s] vehicle swerving within its lane and 15 swerving out of its lane,” as well as “going over the fog lines . . . that are on the side 16 of each lane.” He “then . . . observed [Defendant] go out of his lane a little bit . . . 17 farther down, as well as almost strike the curb.” The deputy activated his lights, and 18 Defendant pulled over. When Deputy Sanchez approached the driver’s side of 19 Defendant’s car, he “observed indicators of impairment, . . . includ[ing] the odor of 20 an alcoholic beverage emitting from the vehicle, slurred speech from [Defendant], 1 as well as bloodshot, watery eyes.” The deputy asked Defendant whether he had 2 consumed alcohol, and Defendant replied that he had not. While Defendant was 3 exiting the vehicle, Deputy Sanchez observed that he was “unsteady on his feet and 4 he . . . walk[ed] with a staggering motion.” After Defendant initially refused to 5 perform field sobriety tests, Deputy Sanchez placed Defendant into custody. 6 However, as the deputy was escorting Defendant to the squad car, Defendant “stated 7 that he could pass the tests and he was not drunk.” The deputy observed further 8 indicators of impairment during the field sobriety tests and based on Defendant’s 9 driving, “his demeanor on scene, as well as the performance of . . . [the] standard 10 field sobriety tests,” he arrested Defendant. 11 {5} The deputy then conducted an inventory search of Defendant’s car, during 12 which he found two unopened alcoholic beverage “shooter containers.” Deputy 13 Sanchez read Defendant his rights and again asked whether he had been drinking, to 14 which Defendant responded that he “had two of [the shooters] . . . hours ago.” 15 Defendant was transported to the San Juan County Adult Detention Center, where 16 he refused to provide a breath sample. The deputy drafted a search warrant to obtain 17 Defendant’s blood for testing, a judge approved the search warrant, and Defendant’s 18 blood sample was taken. Defendant was ultimately charged with multiple crimes, 19 including aggravated DWI for failure to submit to chemical testing, contrary to 1 Section 66-8-102(D)(3), and failure to maintain his traffic lane, contrary to NMSA 2 1978, Section 66-7-317 (1978). 3 {6} Before trial, Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from the 4 traffic stop, arguing that he was seized without reasonable suspicion in violation of 5 his rights under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 6 II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution. The district court denied the motion 7 after an evidentiary hearing, the relevant details of which are described below in our 8 discussion of Defendant’s claim of error regarding the motion to suppress. 9 {7} Defendant’s case originally went to trial on June 17, 2021, but a mistrial was 10 declared when a juror fell asleep during the proceedings. The case went to trial again 11 in October 2022. Before his second trial, Defendant filed a motion to exclude the 12 State’s expert witness, arguing that the State failed to timely file a witness list. After 13 hearing argument the morning of trial, the district court denied the motion and 14 proceeded to jury selection. 15 {8} After voir dire and the selection of the jury panel, Juror 22 asked to speak with 16 the judge and the parties. The judge and the juror had the following interaction:
17 Judge: You have informed the bailiff that you wish to speak to 18 us?
19 Juror 22: Yes, I have a hard time sitting for a long time because of 20 my back and I start getting all jittery. So, and then my 21 second one is I can’t really understand what people are 22 talking about. And I have to really, really listen and 1 sometimes you have to tell me twice what they’re talking 2 about so I don’t know . . . I don’t know how to explain it.
3 Judge: If we were to give you the hearing devices would that—
4 Juror 22: I can hear good but it’s just I can’t concentrate. You know, 5 I have a hard time concentrating what people are talking 6 about. And I have to maybe explain to me maybe two or 7 three times sometimes what they’re talking about. I have 8 kind of a hard time understanding.
9 Judge: . . . Is there anything we could do to help you to 10 concentrate?
11 Juror 22: I don’t know, that’s why I’m bringing this up. I don’t 12 know. I don’t really understand some of the words, like the 13 hard words that’s talk about. I can’t understand all the 14 English.
15 Judge: So possibly if we were to provide you with a—and I’m 16 guessing here—would a Navajo interpreter— 17 Juror 22: Yes. 18 Judge: Would that help you?
19 Juror 22: Maybe in some places. 20 After talking to Juror 22, the judge heard argument from defense counsel and the 21 State. Defense counsel argued that the juror should be allowed to sit on the jury with 22 an interpreter, and the State argued that Juror 22 should be struck for cause, citing 23 her inability to sit still for long periods and her need to hear things multiple times. 24 The judge noted that the juror “did talk about the hard words,” and the judge said, 25 “Let’s take a recess, let me go down and see if we can get her an interpreter and how 26 long that would take.”
1 {9} The judge then questioned the jury clerk on the record. The jury clerk testified 2 that Juror 22 had originally requested a Navajo interpreter on her juror questionnaire. 3 The clerk then referenced a note from Juror 22’s juror profile from September 2022, 4 which read, Juror 22 “said she will not need an interpreter.” The judge acknowledged 5 this and commented that Juror 22 had gone “throughout the jury selection without 6 informing us that she did not understand what was going on and needed an 7 interpreter.” The State then argued that the juror could sit on the jury without an 8 interpreter based on the information supplied by the jury clerk regarding Juror 22’s 9 actual need for an interpreter. Defense counsel contended that the jury clerk’s 10 testimony was not clear evidence of Juror 22’s need and that the court was required 11 to provide an interpreter. The judge responded:
12 Well we’re not going to be able to get an interpreter today. She did state 13 that she basically didn’t want to serve on the jury because she has the 14 medical issues that . . . causes her to get jittery, . . . that she can’t sit for 15 long periods of time, she doesn’t understand all the concepts, so I think 16 basically she was requesting to be removed. 17 The parties renewed their arguments, after which the court concluded that it would
18 not provide an interpreter, nor would it “discharge her from jury duty.” The case 19 proceeded to trial, and Defendant was convicted.
1 DISCUSSION
2 I. No Legally Adequate Justification Was Given for Denying the Juror’s 3 Request for an Interpreter
4 {10} Defendant argues that by seating Juror 22 without providing an interpreter for 5 her, the district court violated Article VII, Section 3 of the New Mexico Constitution, 6 which provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he right of any citizen of the state to . . . sit 7 upon juries, shall never be restricted, abridged or impaired on account of . . . 8 language . . . or inability to speak, read or write the English or Spanish languages 9 except as may be otherwise provided in this constitution.” The State contends that 10 Juror 22 waived her right to an interpreter and that, in any event, her right was not 11 violated. We address waiver and the merits in turn. 12 {11} The State argues that Juror 22 waived the right to appeal the district court’s 13 decision to seat the juror without an interpreter because Juror 22 did not “timely, 14 adequately, and definitively . . . assert that right.” This argument is contrary to New 15 Mexico law, which does not impose any burden at all on jurors to assert their rights 16 under Article VII, Section 3—much less impose a burden of doing so at a particular 17 time and in a particular manner—and which instead allows the defendant, the state, 18 or the court itself to raise the potential need for an interpreter. Precedent establishes 19 that “both the state and the defendant in a criminal action can protect the rights of 20 prospective jurors to be free from discriminatory exclusion,” Singleton, 2001- 21 NMCA-054, ¶ 9, and our Supreme Court’s rule on the subject states that “[t]he need 1 for a court interpreter may be identified by the court or by a case participant,” Rule 2 5-122(B)(1) NMRA. Because prospective jurors may be “unable or unwilling to 3 express” their need for an interpreter, State v. Rico, 2002-NMSC-022, ¶ 10, 132 4 N.M. 570, 52 P.3d 942, New Mexico law imposes no requirement that a juror assert 5 their need for an interpreter. Instead, the need may be identified by the court or a 6 case participant. See Rule 5-122(B)(1); see also Rule 5-122(A)(1) (defining “case 7 participant” as “a party, witness, or other person required or permitted to participate 8 in a proceeding governed by the[] [R]ules” of Criminal Procedure). In this case, the 9 possible need for a Navajo interpreter was identified shortly after the jury was 10 empaneled, and defense counsel repeatedly argued before the district court that Juror 11 22 had the constitutional right to an interpreter. That sufficed; no waiver of the 12 constitutional right occurred. 13 {12} Turning to the parties’ arguments on the merits, in light of the constitutional 14 protection involved, we review the alleged violation of Article VII, Section 3 de 15 novo. See State v. Samora, 2013-NMSC-038, ¶ 6, 307 P.3d 328. In the context of 16 the constitutional right to an interpreter, the district court must provide an explicit 17 statement that is legally sufficient to justify its ruling; that is, “a reasoned 18 explanation on the record.” Rico, 2002-NMSC-022, ¶ 11 (emphasis added). As we 19 will explain, because we conclude that no reasoned explanation was given in this 1 case, we hold that the district court erred by requiring Juror 22 to participate in 2 Defendant’s trial without an interpreter. 3 {13} The foundation for our holding is the two-part test that New Mexico courts 4 use to determine whether a juror’s rights have been violated under Article VII, 5 Section 3. Under the first part of the test, when a trial court becomes “aware that a 6 member of a given venire has difficulty with either English or Spanish or both,” the 7 trial court must “determine whether the difficulty will prevent the juror from 8 following the proceedings.” Rico, 2002-NMSC-022, ¶ 16; see also id. ¶ 1 9 (recognizing that a juror needs an interpreter if they are “not otherwise able to 10 participate in court proceedings” due to language barriers); Rule 5-122(B)(1) (“The 11 need for a court interpreter exists whenever a case participant is unable to hear, 12 speak, or otherwise communicate in the English language to the extent reasonably 13 necessary to fully participate in the proceeding.”). To make this factual 14 determination, the trial court must make an inquiry sufficient to allow the court to 15 assess the extent of the juror’s language difficulty and to determine if the juror is 16 able to participate fully in court proceedings without the assistance of an interpreter. 17 If there is no need for an interpreter, the inquiry ends without reaching the second 18 part of the test. 19 {14} However, if the trial court finds that a juror needs an interpreter, the second 20 part of the test requires the court to determine whether an interpreter can be secured 1 through “reasonable efforts” by the court, and if the answer is yes, an interpreter 2 must be provided. See Rico, 2002-NMSC-022, ¶¶ 11-12, 16. What amounts to 3 reasonable efforts “depend[s] on the circumstances in which the problem arises,” 4 and on appeal, courts consider “the steps actually taken to protect the juror’s rights, 5 the rarity of the juror’s native language and the difficulty that rarity has created in 6 finding an interpreter, [and] the stage of the jury selection process at which it was 7 discovered that an interpreter will be required.” Id. ¶ 12. If an interpreter is not 8 available through reasonable efforts, and the record establishes that providing an 9 interpreter would instead place a “substantial burden” on the court, the constitution 10 does not require that an interpreter be provided to accommodate the juror; only at 11 this point is the court allowed to excuse the juror due to the juror’s language 12 difficulties. See id. (“[A] trial court shall not excuse a juror . . . absent a showing that 13 accommodating that juror will create a substantial burden.”). 14 {15} Relatedly—and significantly in this case—even if providing an interpreter 15 would be substantially burdensome and even if reasonable efforts were made, a 16 person who needs an interpreter in order “to fully participate in the proceeding,” 17 Rule 5-122(B)(1), must never be seated on a jury without an interpreter. When a 18 potential juror cannot adequately understand what is being said by witnesses, 19 lawyers, the judge, and other jurors, that person obviously cannot “fulfill their civic 20 dut[y],” Rico, 2002-NMSC-022, ¶ 7, and when a member of the jury cannot 1 understand the proceeding, the parties and the public are deprived of the fair trial 2 and reliable verdict to which they are entitled. Therefore, the result in this case— 3 seating Juror 22 without an interpreter—cannot be justified based on any 4 determination that reasonable efforts were made or that providing an interpreter 5 would have been substantially burdensome. Because the second part of the test, 6 standing alone, cannot support the district court’s decision as a matter of law, we 7 must focus on the first part of the test: the need for an interpreter. 8 {16} Specifically, the question before us is whether the district court provided a 9 reasoned explanation that is legally sufficient to establish that Juror 22 did not need 10 an interpreter. We consider this question in light of our Supreme Court’s recognition 11 that an explanation on the record is required to fully protect the rights guaranteed by 12 Article VII, Section 3. In Rico, our Supreme Court stated that when a trial court 13 excuses a juror who needs an interpreter, the trial court must provide a “reasoned 14 explanation on the record” that justifies the excusal. Id. ¶ 11. Although Rico does 15 not include an explicit statement of the rationale behind this requirement, we think 16 the purposes of requiring trial courts to explain their reasoning in this context are the 17 same as in other contexts: to create a record that permits meaningful appellate 18 review, and to inform the affected parties of the basis for the ruling. Cf. State v. 19 Lewis, 2018-NMCA-019, ¶ 16, 413 P.3d 484 (“[W]ithout an adequate record 20 explaining the district court’s ruling and reasoning [regarding the imposition of 1 discovery sanctions], we cannot properly perform our role as an appellate court.”); 2 State v. Loretto, 2006-NMCA-142, ¶ 12, 140 N.M. 705, 147 P.3d 1138 (“[I]t is 3 important that the [trial] court make specific findings [related to whether a crime is 4 a serious violent offense for sentencing purposes] both to inform the defendant being 5 sentenced of the factual basis . . . and to permit meaningful and effective appellate 6 review.”). These purposes can only be achieved if the reasoned explanation 7 requirement also applies when, as in this case, a trial court decides to require a person 8 to serve on a jury without an interpreter. We therefore conclude that when the need 9 for an interpreter has been raised, the trial court may only seat that juror without an 10 interpreter after the court conducts an adequate inquiry into the juror’s ability to 11 understand and then provides a reasoned explanation on the record that is legally 12 sufficient to justify its decision—an explanation that supports the determination that 13 the juror can fully participate in the proceedings without the assistance of an 14 interpreter. 15 {17} In this case, the district court did not provide such a reason for seating Juror 16 22 without an interpreter. Although the district court made some remarks during and 17 after counsel’s arguments on the issue, we are not sure how to interpret those 18 remarks. It is not clear to us which remarks were intended to be definitive statements 19 of the reasons for the district court’s ultimate decision, as opposed to comments on 20 the evidence and arguments as they were being presented. For reasons we will 1 explain, even if we assume that all of the remarks were made to explain the district 2 court’s reasoning, that reasoning does not justify seating Juror 22 without an 3 interpreter; the remarks do not support the conclusion that Juror 22 understood the 4 English language well enough to meaningfully participate in the proceedings. 5 {18} Here, the court began to address the juror’s need for an interpreter by speaking 6 to Juror 22 on the record. The juror expressed that she had difficulty with “hard 7 words” and could not understand “all the English.” The court asked whether a 8 Navajo interpreter would help, and the juror replied, “Yes, . . . maybe in some 9 places.” The jury clerk then testified that Juror 22 had requested an interpreter on 10 her juror questionnaire but had subsequently told an individual in the clerk’s office 11 in a phone conversation that she would not need an interpreter. It is unclear from the 12 record what exactly the juror was suggesting in that phone conversation: whether 13 she was saying that she did not need an interpreter for the phone conversation itself 14 or whether she was anticipating that she would not need an interpreter at trial. The 15 court eventually stated that it was not going to be able to get an interpreter that day 16 and that it believed “basically [Juror 22] was requesting to be removed.” After 17 hearing argument from the parties, the court decided not to provide the juror with an 18 interpreter and kept the juror on the panel. 19 {19} The State argues that the district court’s remark that “basically [Juror 22] was 20 requesting to be removed” amounted to an implicit credibility determination about 1 the juror’s motivations to get out of jury duty. As we understand the State’s 2 argument, it suggests that the district court believed the juror was not being honest 3 about the extent of her difficulties with English because she wanted to avoid jury 4 duty, and that this credibility determination is what supported the judge’s decision 5 to keep Juror 22 on the jury without an interpreter. Even if it were true that Juror 22 6 did not wish to be selected to serve as a juror, the desire to avoid jury duty and the 7 need for an interpreter are not mutually exclusive. In other words, a juror who needs 8 an interpreter might also want to get out of jury duty. A juror’s desire to avoid jury 9 duty does not relieve the trial court of its responsibility to determine whether the 10 juror can understand and participate in the proceedings without an interpreter. The 11 relevant inquiry is not whether the juror wishes to be excused but instead whether 12 the juror needs an interpreter. A statement that the juror wants to get out of jury 13 service does not answer the relevant question about the juror’s ability to understand 14 the proceedings. 15 {20} Because the denial of an interpreter is not justified by a reasoned explanation 16 on the record, we agree with Defendant that Article VII, Section 3 was violated when 17 Juror 22 was kept on the jury without an interpreter. This means that Defendant’s 18 conviction must be reversed. See Samora, 2013-NMSC-038, ¶ 15 (“When Article 19 VII, Section 3 is violated and the objection properly preserved, an appellate court is 20 required to reverse what would have been an otherwise valid conviction.”).
1 II. Motion to Suppress 2 {21} Defendant argues that the district court erred in denying Defendant’s motion 3 to suppress for lack of reasonable suspicion because the stop was not justified at its 4 inception. Defendant contends that there were not specific, articulable facts that 5 Defendant was driving while intoxicated or committing a traffic violation, and that 6 the district court’s findings related to the deputy’s reasonable suspicion are not 7 supported by substantial evidence. We disagree. 8 {22} Because “motion[s] to suppress present[] a mixed question of law and fact,” 9 State v. Paananen, 2015-NMSC-031, ¶ 10, 357 P.3d 958 (internal quotation marks 10 and citation omitted), we review “factual matters with deference to the district 11 court’s findings if substantial evidence exists to support them, and [we] review[] the 12 district court’s application of the law de novo.” State v. Almanzar, 2014-NMSC-001, 13 ¶ 9, 316 P.3d 183. When the record includes limited facts, we make “all reasonable 14 presumptions in support of the district court’s ruling.” State v. Jason L., 2000- 15 NMSC-018, ¶ 11, 129 N.M. 119, 2 P.3d 856 (text only) (citation omitted). 16 {23} In order for a traffic stop to be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment of the 17 United States Constitution and Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico 18 Constitution, a police officer must have “reasonable suspicion that the law is being 19 or has been broken.” State v. Martinez, 2018-NMSC-007, ¶ 10, 410 P.3d 186 (text 1 only) (citation omitted). “This includes reasonable suspicion that a traffic law has 2 been violated.” State v. Siqueiros-Valenzuela, 2017-NMCA-074, ¶ 11, 404 P.3d 782. 3 {24} Here, the district court found in its written order that Deputy Sanchez “had 4 reasonable suspicion to stop Defendant” because he “saw Defendant’s vehicle 5 swerving within the lane, swerving over the fog line and ma[king] contact with the 6 center medi[an].” The court concluded that “[t]hese two specific articulable 7 facts . . . establish[ed] reasonable suspicion for the [d]eputy to stop . . . Defendant.” 8 Defendant contends that neither finding was supported by substantial evidence. We 9 agree with Defendant that there is no evidence to support the district court’s finding 10 that Defendant made contact with the median, but we conclude that there is 11 substantial evidence to support the finding that Defendant swerved within the lane 12 and over the fog line. 13 {25} There was no video evidence or testimony presented at the suppression 14 hearing to support the district court’s finding that Defendant made contact with the 15 median. Deputy testified that Defendant’s vehicle “almost [came] into contact with 16 . . . the median,” (emphasis added) and the dashcam video does not show 17 Defendant’s car coming into contact with the median. Even drawing reasonable 18 presumptions in favor of the district court’s ruling, see Jason L., 2000-NMSC-018, 19 ¶ 11, we conclude that this finding is not supported by substantial evidence.
1 {26} Based on that conclusion, we are left with two questions: whether the district 2 court’s finding that Defendant swerved within his lane and over the fog line is 3 supported by substantial evidence, and if so, whether that finding supports 4 reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation. Our answer to both questions is yes. 5 {27} On the substantial evidence question, Defendant argues that Deputy 6 Sanchez’s dashcam video does not show Defendant crossing over the left fog line 7 and that evidence of his tire merely grazing the fog line “does not give rise to 8 reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation.” It is true that the video recording does 9 not clearly show Defendant cross over the fog line. However, Deputy Sanchez 10 testified that while he was on patrol, he saw Defendant’s “car swerving in and out 11 of [its] lane.” The deputy testified that he “saw [Defendant] swerve over the fog line, 12 which is the line that connects to the median, as well as the center stripe line, which 13 would connect him to the other lane of travel, the slow lane.” As the car was 14 approaching a construction zone, Deputy Sanchez saw the car “almost come into 15 contact with the curb, . . . as well as go over a lane again.” At least some of these 16 violations happened before the dashcam was turned on, according to the deputy. 17 Employing all reasonable presumptions in favor of the district court’s ruling, see id., 18 we presume that the district court made a credibility determination about the 19 deputy’s testimony, and believed that Deputy Sanchez had witnessed traffic 20 violations prior to turning on the dashcam. See State v. Yazzie, 2019-NMSC-008, 1 ¶ 14, 437 P.3d 182 (“[A]n appellate court must presume that the district court 2 credited an officer’s testimony, even if that testimony is not perfectly aligned with 3 video evidence.”). We will not second-guess this credibility determination. See State 4 v. Salas, 1999-NMCA-099, ¶ 13, 127 N.M. 686, 986 P.2d 482 (“We defer to the 5 district court when it weighs the credibility of witnesses.”). 6 {28} Having determined that the district court’s finding related to Defendant’s 7 swerving is supported by substantial evidence, we review the district court’s 8 application of the law to those facts de novo. See Almanzar, 2014-NMSC-001, ¶ 9. 9 Defendant was charged with failure to maintain his traffic lane, pursuant to Section 10 66-7-317, for “fail[ing] to drive as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane.” 11 When determining whether an individual maintained their lane as nearly as 12 practicable and therefore whether an officer’s stop for this traffic violation was 13 justified at its inception, this Court held in Siqueiros-Valenzuela that it is necessary 14 for courts to consider the “totality of the circumstances,” including “whether there 15 were any weather conditions, road features, or other circumstances that could have 16 affected or interfered with a driver’s ability to keep [their] vehicle in a single lane.” 17 2017-NMCA-074, ¶ 19. This Court reasoned that the “[d]efendant’s isolated, 18 momentary touching [of] the left shoulder line” as she passed a semi-truck going 19 seventy-five miles per hour on the highway “did not give rise to a reasonable 20 suspicion” of a traffic violation. Id. ¶¶ 22, 26. Therefore, the “[d]efendant’s slight 1 touching of the lane line was feasibly and safely executed under the totality of the 2 circumstances.” Id. ¶ 22. Defendant attempts to draw parallels between Siqueiros- 3 Valenzuela and the instant case, arguing that Defendant “maintained his lane as 4 safely as practicable,” considering that he was “enter[ing] a construction zone with 5 an altered traffic pattern,” “[i]t was dark outside,” he was not speeding, and his tires 6 only “grazed the white fog line.” We are not persuaded. 7 {29} Here, unlike the defendant in Siqueiros-Valenzuela, Defendant was not 8 traveling at a high rate of speed on the highway or attempting to pass a semi-truck. 9 Instead, there is evidence that before Defendant entered the construction zone, he 10 swerved out of his lane multiple times. Additionally, the evidence did not establish 11 one brief touch of the shoulder lane—as was the case in Siqueiros-Valenzuela—but 12 rather multiple instances of swerving within and outside the lane. Finally, although 13 it was dark outside, Defendant does not argue that darkness alone justified the lane 14 departures here, and we are aware of no basis for reaching that conclusion. 15 {30} We conclude that the totality of circumstances gave the deputy reasonable 16 suspicion to believe that Defendant failed to maintain his lane as nearly as 17 practicable. See id. ¶ 19. We therefore hold that the district court did not err by 18 denying Defendant’s motion to suppress.
1 III. Sufficiency of the Evidence 2 {31} Defendant argues that the evidence is not sufficient to support his conviction, 3 and we address this argument because if Defendant is correct, double jeopardy 4 principles would bar the State from trying Defendant again on remand. See State v. 5 Mascareñas, 2000-NMSC-017, ¶ 31, 129 N.M. 230, 4 P.3d 1221. Defendant argues 6 that “[t]he State failed to prove that [he] was impaired to the slightest degree” 7 because his blood alcohol content was under the per se limit for driving while 8 intoxicated, “he was driving as safely as practicable,” and his performance on field 9 sobriety tests can be explained by his bad back. These arguments do not require 10 reversal. “[V]iew[ing] the evidence in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict, 11 [and] indulging all reasonable inferences and resolving all conflicts in the evidence 12 in favor of the verdict,” State v. Holt, 2016-NMSC-011, ¶ 20, 368 P.3d 409 (internal 13 quotation marks and citation omitted), we conclude that the evidence suffices. 14 {32} We measure the sufficiency of the evidence against the jury instructions 15 provided at trial. State v. Smith, 1986-NMCA-089, ¶ 7, 104 N.M. 729, 726 P.2d 883. 16 Here, the jury instructions addressed the State’s two alternative theories of DWI; the 17 jury was instructed, in relevant part, that the State must prove that 18 1. [D]efendant operated a motor vehicle; 19 2. At the time:
20 a. [D]efendant was under the influence of intoxicating 21 liquor, that is, as a result of drinking liquor . . . [D]efendant was 1 less able to the slightest degree, either mentally or physically, or 2 both, to exercise the clear judgment and steady hand necessary 3 to handle a vehicle with safety to the person and the public; or
4 b. [D]efendant was under the influence of drugs to such a 5 degree that . . . [D]efendant was incapable of safely driving a 6 vehicle.
7 (Emphasis added.) Because we conclude that the first theory is supported by 8 sufficient evidence, we do not consider the second. When determining whether an 9 individual is impaired to the slightest degree, the jury may “rely on common 10 knowledge and experience to determine whether [the d]efendant was under the 11 influence of alcohol[,]” including indicators such as their “driving behavior, physical 12 condition, admission of drinking, and performance on the field sobriety tests.” State 13 v. Neal, 2008-NMCA-008, ¶ 27, 143 N.M. 341, 176 P.3d 330. 14 {33} That standard is met by the State’s evidence in this case. At trial, the deputy 15 testified about Defendant’s driving leading up to his arrest. Deputy Sanchez stated 16 that he “observed [Defendant’s] vehicle swerving within its lane and swerving out 17 of its lane, going over the fog lines,” and the deputy testified that he saw Defendant 18 “almost strike the curb.” After pulling Defendant over and approaching the driver’s 19 side window, Deputy Sanchez testified that he smelled the “odor of an alcoholic 20 beverage emitting from the vehicle,” and observed “slurred speech from 21 [Defendant], as well as bloodshot watery eyes.” Then, “when [Defendant] exited the 1 vehicle, [Deputy Sanchez] notice[d] that [Defendant] was unsteady on his feet and 2 he . . . walk[ed] with a staggering motion.” 3 {34} Deputy Sanchez also testified about his observations while Defendant 4 performed field sobriety tests. When the deputy was administering the horizontal 5 gaze nystagmus test, the deputy continued to smell the odor of an alcoholic beverage, 6 and the deputy observed “a very noticeable body sway.” Then, during the walk-and- 7 turn test, Defendant “struggled to get into the position.” Deputy Sanchez testified 8 that
9 in the instructional stage, [Defendant got] out of the position . . . he 10 started off unbalanced, he . . . step[ped] off line, [and] he missed heel- 11 to-toe steps. When he got close to the turn portion of the test, he took 12 an additional step, he turned incorrectly by not leaving his front foot 13 planted. . . . When he got turned around, [Defendant also] used his arms 14 to balance . . . and then on the way back, he . . . missed heel-to-toe steps 15 and he stepped off line.
16 And during the one-leg stand test, Defendant “sway[ed],” “put his foot down,” and 17 “hopped to try to regain his balance.” Based on these indicators of impairment, 18 Deputy Sanchez arrested Defendant. The deputy then did an inventory search of 19 Defendant’s car and found two alcoholic beverage shooters. Although Defendant 20 had previously denied drinking any alcohol, after the shooters were found, 21 Defendant admitted to the deputy that he had “two of [the shooters] . . . hours ago.” 22 Defendant’s own admission that he drank alcohol was further evidence available to 23 the fact-finder to support a DWI conviction. See Neal, 2008-NMCA-008, ¶ 27.
1 {35} Finally, Melinda Boyd, a forensic toxicologist, testified regarding the results 2 of Defendant’s blood alcohol content test. She testified that Defendant had alcohol 3 in his blood and that the amount of alcohol in his blood could impair his ability to 4 drive. 5 {36} Viewing all of this testimony together under our deferential standard of 6 review, we hold that the evidence suffices to support Defendant’s DWI conviction. 7 See State v. Gutierrez, 1996-NMCA-001, ¶ 4, 121 N.M. 191, 909 P.2d 751 8 (upholding a DWI conviction when the defendant smelled of alcohol, had bloodshot 9 and watery eyes, failed field sobriety tests, admitted to drinking alcohol, the 10 defendant’s vehicle was weaving into other traffic lanes, defendant nearly hit another 11 vehicle on the road, and the officers believed the defendant was intoxicated). We 12 therefore hold that double jeopardy does not bar retrial. 13 {37} Defendant’s attacks on the evidence are not persuasive to us. First, Defendant 14 argues that his blood sample was under the per se limit for driving while intoxicated, 15 pursuant to Section 66-8-102(C)(1). However, the State’s theory at trial was not that 16 Defendant’s blood alcohol level was above the per se DWI limit. Instead, the State’s 17 theory, as reflected in the jury instructions, was that Defendant was impaired to the 18 slightest degree. Second, Defendant contends that “he was driving as safely as 19 practicable[] given the circumstances” and that his poor performance on the field 20 sobriety tests is attributable to his bad back. We will not reverse on this basis because 1 the jury was not required to accept these defenses. See State v. Rojo, 1999-NMSC- 2 001, ¶ 19, 126 N.M. 438, 971 P.2d 829 (“Contrary evidence supporting acquittal 3 does not provide a basis for reversal because the jury is free to reject [the 4 d]efendant’s version of the facts.”). 5 IV. Motion to Exclude Expert Witness Testimony 6 {38} Defendant argues “that the district court abused its discretion by allowing the 7 lab analyst to testify at trial, despite the State’s delayed disclosure.” We disagree. 8 {39} We review a district court’s decision regarding whether to exclude a witness 9 for an abuse of discretion, “view[ing] the evidence—and all inferences to be drawn 10 from the evidence—in the light most favorable to the district court’s decision.” State 11 v. Le Mier, 2017-NMSC-017, ¶ 22, 394 P.3d 959. Importantly, “[t]rial courts possess 12 broad discretionary authority to decide what sanction to impose,” id., and as an 13 appellate court, “we cannot second-guess our [trial] courts’ determinations as to how 14 their discretionary authority is best exercised,” id. ¶ 17. When, as in this case, a trial 15 court is determining whether the exclusion of a witness is an appropriate remedy for 16 a discovery violation, the court must consider the factors from State v. Harper, 2011- 17 NMSC-044, ¶ 15, 150 N.M. 745, 266 P.3d 25, expounded upon in Le Mier: “(1) the 18 culpability of the offending party, (2) the prejudice to the adversely affected party, 19 and (3) the availability of lesser sanctions.” 2017-NMSC-017, ¶ 15. Because the 1 district court chose not to sanction the State, we limit our review to the first two 2 factors. 3 {40} The relevant facts are as follows. Defendant’s original trial was set for June 4 17, 2021. The State had included “Dr. Samuel Kleinman, or [d]esignee” from the 5 Scientific Laboratory Division in its witness list filed November 21, 2019, and 6 intended to call Ms. Boyd to testify regarding the lab results of Defendant’s blood 7 alcohol content. The first trial, however, ended in a mistrial. Another discovery and 8 scheduling order was issued on April 18, 2022, requiring witness lists to be filed ten 9 days prior to the final pretrial conference. The pretrial conference was held on 10 August 29, 2022—no witness list was filed prior to this conference and both parties 11 stated that they were prepared for trial with no mention of the witness list. 12 {41} Defendant filed a motion to exclude the State’s expert witness testimony on 13 October 6, 2022—the day before trial—in which he referenced communications in 14 the weeks leading up to trial where “the State represented that its contemplated 15 witness for the laboratory would be unavailable to testify, and that it may attempt to 16 obtain a different witness to lay the foundation for the laboratory results.” Defendant 17 alleged that on October 5, 2022, the State “contacted defense counsel representing 18 that the laboratory witness was now available to testify and that the State would be 19 calling Ms. Boyd.” These communications are not included in the record. See State 1 v. Hunter, 2001-NMCA-078, ¶ 18, 131 N.M. 76, 33 P.3d 296 (“Matters not of record 2 present no issue for review.”). 3 {42} The district court heard argument on Defendant’s motion to exclude the 4 State’s expert witness on the morning of trial. The State addressed each Harper 5 factor and confirmed during argument that it had been unsure whether Ms. Boyd 6 would be able to testify, but that it notified Defendant of its uncertainty, and then 7 later as soon as it confirmed her availability. The district court denied Defendant’s 8 motion orally and in its written order stated, “This is a retrial after a mistrial. Same 9 witness at prior trial. Witness was at the prior trial. Defense was prepared at prior 10 trial.” 11 {43} We first consider the level of culpability attributable to the State. See Le Mier, 12 2017-NMSC-017, ¶ 15. During its argument on the motion, the State asserted it was 13 unsure whether an expert would be available to testify at Defendant’s second trial, 14 but the State had put defense counsel on notice that someone would likely testify 15 from the Scientific Laboratory Division when it filed its witness list for the first trial. 16 Once the State knew Ms. Boyd would be available for the second trial, it alerted 17 defense counsel via email. The district court did not explicitly address culpability in 18 its order, but we believe it implicitly found that the State was not sufficiently 19 culpable, as it filed a witness list for the first trial and maintained contact with 20 Defendant about the status of its witness.
1 {44} The second factor considers the prejudice to Defendant and the district court. 2 See id. ¶¶ 15, 25-26. Defendant argues that he was prejudiced because he “would 3 have prepared for trial differently had he known Ms. Boyd was going to testify as an 4 expert and lay the foundation for the blood test results.” However, as the district 5 court noted in its order, Ms. Boyd was called to testify at Defendant’s prior trial. 6 Therefore, according to the district court, defense counsel should have already 7 prepared to do an examination of the exact same witness and was not prejudiced by 8 the district court’s decision to allow the State’s expert to testify. 9 {45} While the district court did not explicitly refer to Harper or Le Mier in its 10 order, the court heard argument on the factors, and we believe it implicitly addressed 11 the first two factors in its oral ruling and written order. The district court found that 12 the State was not sufficiently culpable, because the State communicated the status 13 of the expert witness to Defendant, and that Defendant was not sufficiently 14 prejudiced, as he had the opportunity to prepare for the same witness at the prior 15 trial. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion because its 16 decision was not “clearly untenable or not justified by reason,” and we therefore will 17 not disturb the court’s order. Le Mier, 2017-NMSC-017, ¶ 22 (internal quotation 18 marks and citation omitted). 19 CONCLUSION 20 {46} We reverse Defendant’s conviction and remand for a new trial.
1 {47} IT IS SO ORDERED.
2 _____________________________ 3 ZACHARY A. IVES, Judge
4 WE CONCUR:
5 ____________________________ 6 KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge
7 ____________________________ 8 JANE B. YOHALEM, Judge