State v. Mancha
35,163
| N.M. Ct. App. | Jul 18, 2017Background
- Defendant Michael Mancha was convicted of DWI (breath alcohol .08 or above) in Doña Ana County district court.
- The State introduced breath-test results from an IR 8000 operated by Deputy Fabian Fernandez.
- Deputy Fernandez testified he performed calibration checks but failed to record the calibration results in the SLD-required log book, admitting this omission violated SLD regulations.
- At trial defense counsel objected to admission of the results for lack of foundation, arguing SLD regulations must be complied with; defense later moved for a new trial reiterating lack of foundation.
- On appeal Mancha argued the omitted log entries concerned SLD record-keeping rules that are "accuracy-ensuring" per State v. Martinez, and that once a prima facie showing of noncompliance was made the burden shifted to the State to prove the specific regulations were not accuracy-ensuring.
- The Court of Appeals held these specific arguments were not preserved below and therefore declined to review them, affirming the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of breath-test results given SLD noncompliance | State: results admissible; operator testified he calibrated machine | Mancha: failure to record calibration in log book violated SLD regs and invalidates results | Not reached on merits — issue not preserved; conviction affirmed |
| Whether SLD record-keeping regs are "accuracy-ensuring" | State: (not required to prove at trial because issue not raised) | Mancha: log-book/regulations are accuracy-ensuring per Martinez; State must prove otherwise | Not preserved; court refused to address accuracy-ensuring argument |
| Burden-shifting after prima facie noncompliance | State: (no burden-shifting claim litigated below) | Mancha: once noncompliance shown, burden shifts to State to prove reg. immaterial to accuracy | Argument not preserved; court declined review |
| Appellate preservation / record reliance | State: preserved issues limited to foundation; not the Martinez accuracy-regs theory | Mancha: relied on trial objection and new-trial motion as preservation | Court: trial objection raised foundation claim but did not specifically raise Martinez accuracy-regs or burden-shifting; therefore not preserved |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Montoya, 345 P.3d 1056 (N.M. 2015) (preservation requires timely, specific objection to allow intelligent ruling)
- State v. Martinez, 160 P.3d 894 (N.M. 2007) (distinguishes which SLD regulations are "accuracy-ensuring" for foundational requirements)
- State v. Leon, 292 P.3d 493 (N.M. Ct. App. 2013) (generally will not consider issues not preserved)
- State v. Clements, 215 P.3d 54 (N.M. Ct. App. 2009) (appellate court will not search record for preservation where defendant fails to cite transcript references)