State v. Hale
34,126
| N.M. Ct. App. | Sep 15, 2016Background
- Defendant Janice Hale was stopped at ~3:20 a.m. for driving with no lights and expired registration; officer observed delayed response to lights and sudden braking.
- Officer detected strong alcohol odor, bloodshot eyes; Hale admitted drinking three to four drinks, last at ~10 p.m.
- Officer administered standardized field sobriety tests (HGN, walk-and-turn, one-legged stand) and two alternate tests; officer observed multiple errors on WAT and OLS and failures on alternate tests.
- Hale was arrested and gave breath tests showing BAC of 0.08 at 4:10 a.m. and 0.07 at 4:12 a.m.
- At trial Hale disputed the officer’s observations, denied poor FST performance (or blamed instruction/heels), and argued no evidence her driving was impaired; the jury convicted and district court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove DWI (impaired to slightest degree) | State: combined observations (odor, bloodshot eyes), admissions, poor FST performance, and BAC support impairment | Hale: no bad driving observed; drank hours earlier; FST errors could be from shoes, instructions, nerves, tiredness; tests lack individual baselines | Affirmed: substantial evidence supported conviction; jury could credit officer and infer impairment |
| Reliability/admissibility of FSTs generally | State: FSTs are recognized divided-attention tasks probative of impairment | Hale: FSTs are inherently unreliable without baseline (raised on appeal, not preserved at trial) | Not reached on merits: issue unpreserved; courts have treated FST performance as evidence of impairment |
| Need for evidence of bad driving | State: not required if other indicia of impairment exist | Hale: argued lack of observed bad driving undermines conviction | Held: Bad driving not required; other evidence sufficient |
| Weight of alternative explanations | State: jury may reject defendant’s alternate explanations | Hale: errors attributable to heels, instructions, fatigue | Held: Jury permissibly credited officer; alternative explanations insufficient to require reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Neal, 143 N.M. 341, 176 P.3d 330 (N.M. Ct. App.) (FST failures and other signs support DWI conviction)
- State v. Salgado, 126 N.M. 691, 974 P.2d 661 (N.M. 1999) (definition of substantial evidence review)
- State v. Rojo, 126 N.M. 438, 971 P.2d 829 (N.M. 1999) (jury may reject defendant’s version; appellate courts do not reweigh evidence)
- State v. Soto, 142 N.M. 32, 162 P.3d 187 (N.M. Ct. App.) (DWI conviction can rest on indicia other than poor driving)
- State v. Gutierrez, 121 N.M. 191, 909 P.2d 751 (N.M. Ct. App.) (poor driving, odor, bloodshot eyes, and failed FSTs constitute overwhelming evidence of DWI)