State v. Gurule
252 P.3d 823
N.M. Ct. App.2011Background
- Gurule was convicted of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor (DWI) under NMSA 1978 66-8-102(A) (impaired to the slightest degree).
- Metropolitan Court found DWI under (A) to be a strict liability crime and rejected involuntary intoxication as a defense.
- Gurule allegedly drank a hot toddy containing bourbon, unaware of the alcohol content, after taking cold medication.
- Officer Hindi observed speeding and lane weaving, leading to a traffic stop; Gurule denied consuming alcohol.
- Officer White observed bloodshot eyes and odor of alcohol; Gurule failed field sobriety tests and was arrested for DWI.
- Defendant appealed arguing DWI (A) is not strict liability, involuntary intoxication is a defense, and there was insufficient evidence of over‑the‑counter cold medication influence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DWI (A) is a strict liability crime | Gurule argues DWI (A) requires intent. | Gurule contends there is an intent requirement under (A). | DWI (A) is a strict liability crime. |
| Whether involuntary intoxication is a defense to strict liability DWI | The State argues involuntary intoxication is not a defense to strict liability DWI. | Gurule asserts involuntary intoxication can negate mens rea. | Involuntary intoxication is not a defense to strict liability DWI. |
| Whether there was sufficient evidence that Gurule was under the influence of over‑the‑counter cold medication | The State relies on officer observations and tests to prove intoxication. | Gurule contends evidence of cold medication contributed to intoxication is insufficient. | Not reached; court upheld conviction on strict liability basis without addressing sufficiency. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Rowell, 121 N.M. 111, 908 P.2d 1379 (1995) (statutory construction de novo for strict liability)
- State v. Pickett, 146 N.M. 655, 213 P.3d 805 (2009) (impaired to the slightest degree standard; per se vs. impaired standards)
- State v. Harrison, 115 N.M. 73, 846 P.2d 1082 (Ct.App.1992) (DWI strict liability under 66-8-102 is implied by statute and public policy)
- State v. Lovato, 110 N.M. 146, 793 P.2d 276 (1990) (involuntary intoxication limited to negate intent in specific circumstances)
- State v. Torres, 2003-NMCA-101, 134 N.M. 194, 75 P.3d 410 (2003) (duress can be a defense to strict liability, unlike involuntary intoxication)