State v. Armijo
2014 NMCA 013
N.M. Ct. App.2013Background
- Armijo appeals his first-offense DWI conviction after a prior trial and on-record review affirmed; sole issue on appeal is DWI conviction, as lane and speeding verdicts were resolved below; State’s evidence included breath test results and two officers’ testimony; Officer Hammon testified to speeding, lane deviation, odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and admitted one beer; Officer Martinez conducted field sobriety tests and testified about bloodshot eyes, odor of alcohol, and Defendant's beer intake; breath samples showed .06 and .05, with trial questioning about whether these scores indicate impairment; defense focused on lack of extensive impairment evidence and the low breath scores; court instructed jury regarding the impairment standard; court ultimately reversed and remanded for new trial due to improper unqualified opinion testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Improper opinion testimony about breath scores | Armijo argues Martinez’s questions seeking an opinion on impairment were unqualified | Armijo contends the questions were harmless with curative instruction | Reversed for prejudicial error due to unqualified testimony |
| Effectiveness of curative instruction | State contends curative instruction cured the error | No proper cure given the context and timing | Curative instruction inadequate; reversal warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gonzales, 129 N.M. 556, 11 P.3d 131 (2000) (review for prejudice when improperly elicited testimony could have influenced verdict)
- State v. Tollardo, 275 P.3d 110 (2012) (harmless error requires case-by-case analysis; error may require reversal)
- State v. Saavedra, 103 N.M. 282, 705 P.2d 1133 (1985) (prosecutor’s improper questions can require new trial when motive is improper)
- State v. Vialpando, 93 N.M. 289, 599 P.2d 1086 (1979) (curative admonitions cure only when not intentionally elicited and with no improper motive)
- State v. Newman, 109 N.M. 263, 784 P.2d 1006 (1989) (general admonition to disregard may cure admissible evidence, but not when improperly elicited by prosecution)