State v. Alvarez
34,855
N.M. Ct. App.Aug 8, 2017Background
- Late-night stop on I‑10: officers responded to a report of a pickup stuck in the median trying to back into traffic; officers arrived ~5 minutes after dispatch.
- Alvarez was alone in the driver’s seat, exited when an officer approached; keys were in the ignition, hazard lights were on, and tires appeared stuck in dirt.
- Officers detected a strong odor of alcohol, slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and unsteadiness; Alvarez submitted to field sobriety testing and was arrested.
- Blood test showed BAC 0.25 g/100 mL.
- Jury convicted Alvarez by a general verdict on aggravated DWI (instruction included two alternative theories: past driving or actual physical control) and reckless driving; on appeal the State conceded reckless driving lacked sufficient evidence.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Alvarez's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated DWI under past‑driving theory | Circumstantial evidence (driver alone, behind wheel, keys in ignition, vehicle stuck in median shortly after dispatch, statements he was coming from Albuquerque/going to El Paso) supports inference he drove while intoxicated | His statements were not an admission of driving; no eyewitness saw him drive; unknown how long vehicle had been there or whether someone else had driven earlier | Affirmed: sufficient circumstantial evidence to support past driving theory |
| Sufficiency for aggravated DWI under actual‑physical‑control theory | Evidence (driver in seat, keys in ignition, vehicle appearing "on," hazard lights, not clearly inoperable, told officers he was going to El Paso) supports that he exercised control and intended to drive | Argues he was just a passive occupant or the vehicle was inoperable (stuck in dirt) so no intent/control to drive | Court held evidence was sufficient for actual physical control but did not need to resolve it because past‑driving sufficed |
| Sufficiency of evidence for reckless driving (and related double jeopardy claim) | Prosecutor previously argued only past driving for DWI; on appeal the State concedes reckless driving conviction lacks evidence beyond intoxication | Argued reckless driving unsupported; alternatively raised double jeopardy if reckless driving sustained | Conviction for reckless driving reversed/vacated (State conceded insufficiency); court did not reach double jeopardy issue |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Mailman, 242 P.3d 269 (N.M. 2010) (circumstantial evidence can support past driving or actual physical control; operability and presence of keys are important)
- State v. Sims, 236 P.3d 642 (N.M. 2010) (actual physical control requires evidence of exercise of control and general intent to drive; passive occupancy insufficient)
- State v. Cotton, 263 P.3d 925 (N.M. Ct. App. 2011) (insufficient evidence where timing and impairment relative to driving could not be established)
- State v. Montoya, 345 P.3d 1056 (N.M. 2015) (standard for sufficiency review: view evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
- State v. Olguin, 906 P.2d 731 (N.M. 1995) (general verdict need not be set aside if at least one alternative basis is supported)
- State v. Sandoval, 539 P.2d 1029 (N.M. Ct. App. 1975) (intoxication alone is only a circumstance for reckless driving and is not dispositive)