State v. Garcia, 34,571

Background

On Nov. 28, 2013 APD ran a sobriety checkpoint. Sergeant Cottrell observed a truck mount a curb while attempting to avoid a barricade; Defendant Alivia Garcia ended up driving and was contacted by officers.
Officers observed signs of intoxication (bloodshot/watery eyes, slurred speech, odor of alcohol); Defendant admitted drinking and later refused field sobriety tests and a breath test after arrest and implied-consent advisement.
Lapel-camera footage began a few seconds into Sergeant Cottrell’s interaction; the camera model had a three-second start delay and officers testified it sometimes failed to capture initial moments.
At trial the State presented evidence tying Defendant to operation of the vehicle, intoxication indicators, arrest, advisement, request for breath test, and Defendant’s refusal; Defendant testified she had been forced into the driver’s seat.
Defendant moved for a directed verdict arguing the State failed to prove any chemical test she refused complied with SLD regulations; she also requested a Ware adverse-inference jury instruction based on the missing seconds of video. Both were denied; she raised ineffective-assistance-of-counsel for failing to seek pretrial relief on the missing-video claim.
The district court affirmed convictions for aggravated DWI (refusal) and careless driving; the Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting the directed-verdict, Ware-instruction, and on-record ineffective-assistance claims, and directing ineffective-assistance claims to habeas proceedings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of directed verdict was error because State didn’t prove the (refused) test complied with SLD regulations	State: record evidence (operation, intoxication signs, advisement, request, refusal) satisfied UJI elements for aggravated DWI refusal	Garcia: statutory scheme requires SLD-compliant test proof; absent that, conviction should be reversed	Held: Affirmed — sufficiency reviewed under jury instructions; substantial evidence supported each UJI element; no authority or instruction required SLD-certification be proven at that stage
Whether defendant was entitled to a Ware adverse-inference jury instruction for missing initial seconds of lapel video	State: missing-video allegation should have been litigated pretrial; no showing of bad faith or gross negligence	Garcia: brief missing segment was material; officer’s failure to record was gross negligence warranting Ware instruction	Held: Denied — no evidence of bad faith or gross negligence (camera had known 3-sec delay and checkpoint practice modified recording); defendant not entitled to instruction; timing of proffer need not be decided
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not raising the missing-video issue pretrial	State: record does not show counsel performance fell below reasonable standard; ineffective-assistance claims require fuller record	Garcia: counsel’s failure prejudiced her because instruction was denied as untimely	Held: Not resolved on direct appeal — claim more appropriately pursued via habeas (record insufficient to adjudicate ineffective-assistance fully)

Key Cases Cited

State v. Ware, 881 P.2d 679 (N.M. 1994) (adverse-inference instruction when police fail to gather material evidence and conduct amounts to gross negligence or worse)
State v. Baca, 352 P.3d 1151 (N.M. 2015) (standard for directed verdict / sufficiency of evidence review at close of State’s case)
State v. Sena, 192 P.3d 1198 (N.M. 2008) (test for sufficiency of evidence; appellate review views evidence in light most favorable to State)
State v. Anaya, 217 P.3d 586 (N.M. 2009) (evading a marked DWI checkpoint can support reasonable suspicion)
State v. Hester, 979 P.2d 729 (N.M. 1999) (framework for ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims)