366 P.3d 304
N.M. Ct. App.2015Background
- Hobbs was pulled over for speeding and arrested for DUI after failing field sobriety tests in the early hours of January 14, 2012.
- Officer Frazier, certified by SLD to administer BATs on the IR 8000, conducted Hobbs’s BAT after a 20-minute deprivation period.
- Frazier testified to calibration checks, air-blank checks, and that the IR 8000 carried an SLD certification; the machine appeared to function normally and two breath samples were taken.
- The State moved to admit the BAT results; defense challenged the sufficiency of the foundational evidence regarding equipment approval.
- The trial court admitted the BAT results; Hobbs was convicted under the per se DUI statute, and the district court affirmed the admission of the BAT results.
- The Court of Appeals upheld, distinguishing between instrument certification and equipment approvals and holding that equipment approvals are not required to establish a BAT’s foundational admissibility under Rule 11-104(A).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Foundation for BAT admission—must show SLD-certified instrument at test? | Hobbs argues Martinez requires threshold instrument certification. | Hobbs argues equipment approvals also needed for foundation. | Not required to show equipment approvals; instrument certification suffices. |
| Must the gas tank and gas reference standard be independently approved? | Hobbs contends independent SLD approval of tank/standard is necessary. | Hobbs contends such approvals are part of the instrument foundation. | Not required to establish admissibility; equipment approvals are not foundational prerequisites. |
| Does Rule 11-104(A) foundation apply to equipment as it does to instruments? | Hobbs contends a uniform standard applies to equipment as to instruments. | Hobbs argues equipment matters are not covered by foundational requirements for instrument accuracy. | Foundational requirements differentiate between instruments and equipment; only instrument accuracy regulations matter for admissibility. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Martinez, 2007-NMSC-025 (NMSC 2007) (threshold showing of instrument certification required for BAT admissibility)
- State v. Dedman, 2004-NMSC-037 (NMSC 2004) (purpose of blood collection regulation not to ensure accuracy; not foundational)
- State v. Montoya, 1999-NMCA-001 (NMCA 1999) (calibration checks ensure machine function and valid result)
- State v. Willie, 2009-NMSC-037 (NMSC 2009) (statutory interpretation of regulatory concepts in BAC testing)