2015 NMCA 022
N.M. Ct. App.2015Background
- On July 23, 2011, Garnenez drove off I-40 in Gallup, NM; two passengers died and Garnenez was injured and hospitalized.
- Officer Yearley detected signs of alcohol but did not arrest Garnenez at the hospital, doubting her ability to consent due to injuries/medication.
- Rather than rely on the Implied Consent Act, Yearley obtained a search warrant authorizing a blood draw; the draw occurred before formal arrest and after hospital discharge.
- Garnenez was tried by jury, convicted of two counts of vehicular homicide; a DWI conviction was later vacated on double-jeopardy grounds.
- On appeal, Garnenez challenged (1) whether blood drawn pursuant solely to a warrant (without arrest) was admissible; (2) alleged false statement in the warrant affidavit; (3) juror prejudice (prosecutor voir dire and an emotional outburst in the gallery); and (4) admissibility/foundation for BAC results and retrograde extrapolation testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Garnenez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Validity of blood draw via search warrant without arrest | Warrant-supported blood draw is a constitutionally permissible alternative to implied-consent arrest-based testing when probable cause exists | Implied Consent Act requires arrest before BAC evidence is admissible; warrant alone insufficient | Warrant-authorized blood draw is permissible; Implied Consent Act does not prohibit warrant-based draws supported by probable cause |
| 2. False statement in warrant affidavit (that defendant was under arrest) | Officer’s mistaken inclusion was negligent, not deliberate or reckless; probable cause otherwise established | Affidavit contained false material fact (defendant was not arrested) and so warrant must be suppressed | District court found no deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard; suppression denied |
| 3. Jury prejudice from voir dire questions and gallery outburst | Prosecutor’s hypotheticals were proper voir dire; court managed bias and empaneled impartial jurors; gallery outburst was addressed promptly | Voir dire statements and audience crying prejudiced venire/jury and warranted mistrial | No abuse of discretion in denying mistrial; voir dire within bounds and jury admonished; outburst addressed and jurors instructed to avoid sympathy |
| 4. Admissibility/foundation for BAC and extrapolation testimony; Confrontation Clause | BAC results and expert extrapolation relevant to impairment; foundation (chain/custody) was established later; absence of blood-drawer live testimony does not violate Confrontation Clause | Testimony about BAC preceded foundation; retrograde extrapolation improperly relied on BAC; lack of live blood-drawer testimony violated confrontation | No abuse of discretion: conditional admission and later foundation satisfied admissibility; extrapolation testimony weight issue not exclusionary; Confrontation Clause not violated by absence of live blood-drawer testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (search warrants preferred for invasive bodily intrusions absent exigency)
- State v. Steele, 93 N.M. 470 (N.M. Ct. App. 1979) (pre-amendment view that warrant could not be used after refusal under Implied Consent Act)
- State v. House, 121 N.M. 784 (N.M. Ct. App. 1996) (affidavit for blood-draw warrant need not state arrest; probable cause suffices)
- State v. Duquette, 128 N.M. 530 (N.M. Ct. App. 2000) (refusal under Implied Consent Act not a prerequisite to issuing a blood-draw warrant when probable cause exists)
- State v. Fernandez, 128 N.M. 111 (N.M. Ct. App. 1999) (suppression for falsehoods in warrant requires deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard)
- State v. Salgado, 126 N.M. 691 (N.M. 1999) (standard for reviewing findings of fact and substantial-evidence review)
- State v. Pickett, 146 N.M. 655 (N.M. Ct. App. 2009) (BAC evidence is relevant to impairment-to-the-slightest-degree theory)