State v. Apodaca
A-1-CA-35879
| N.M. Ct. App. | Nov 20, 2017Background
- Paula Apodaca was convicted in metropolitan court of driving while intoxicated after being stopped at a sobriety checkpoint; she appealed to the district court and then to the Court of Appeals.
- Defendant challenged the checkpoint’s location and supervision, arguing it allowed unbridled officer discretion.
- She also argued the checkpoint lacked adequate advance publicity (media notice), rendering it constitutionally unreasonable.
- Defendant contested the sufficiency of the evidence and the existence of probable cause, citing factors (partial blindness, unfamiliar car, nervousness, shoes removed, misunderstanding instructions) that she said could explain her performance on field sobriety tests.
- The district court affirmed the conviction; the Court of Appeals proposed to adopt that opinion and required Defendant to identify errors, which she did not successfully do.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Apodaca) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether checkpoint location and supervision were reasonable | Site was selected and supervised by sergeant considering safety and law-enforcement goals | Selection/supervision allowed unbridled officer discretion and was unreasonable | Affirmed: site selection/supervision reasonable; no evidence of improper field discretion |
| Whether advance publicity complied with Betancourt factors | State issued a media release to print/TV/radio before checkpoint | Media may not have actually been notified; lack of publicity made checkpoint intrusive | Affirmed: publicity facts did not render checkpoint unreasonably intrusive |
| Whether evidence supported probable cause for arrest | Officer testimony and sobriety-test results supported belief Defendant was intoxicated | Alternative explanations (vision, unfamiliar car, nervousness, shoes removed, confusion) undermined findings | Affirmed: trial court’s factual findings supported by substantial evidence; probable cause existed |
| Standard of appellate review (reweighing evidence) | Trial court as factfinder entitled to weigh evidence; appellate review limited to substantial-evidence inquiry | Invited court to reweigh evidence in light of alternative explanations | Affirmed: appellate courts will not reweigh; only review for substantial evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Las Cruces v. Betancourt, 735 P.2d 1161 (N.M. Ct. App. 1987) (sets factors for constitutionality of sobriety checkpoints)
- Hennessy v. Duryea, 955 P.2d 683 (N.M. Ct. App. 1998) (burden on opposing party in summary calendar cases to point out errors)
- State v. Garcia, 246 P.3d 1057 (N.M. 2011) (appellate courts will not reweigh evidence; review is for substantial evidence)
- In re Ernesto M., Jr., 915 P.2d 318 (N.M. Ct. App. 1996) (standard that appellate review asks whether decision is supported by substantial evidence)