State v. Montoya State v. Yap
2016 NMCA 79
| N.M. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Two consolidated appeals: Andrea Montoya and Michael Yap convicted of DWI (NMSA 1978, § 66-8-102) based mainly on breath alcohol tests (BAT) using the Intoxilyzer 8000 (IR 8000).
- Both officers followed SLD protocols (20-minute observation, diagnostics, air blanks, current SLD certification); Montoya’s tests: 0.11 and 0.10; Yap’s tests: 0.08 and 0.08.
- Each defendant moved to suppress BAT results claiming the SLD regulatory scheme fails to include measurement uncertainty computations, rendering results unreliable and inadmissible.
- Montoya offered documentary materials and an expert (quality assurance) arguing uncertainty makes results incomplete; Yap elicited cross‑testimony on uncertainty but presented less documentary/expert proof at trial.
- Metropolitan courts admitted the BAT results; both defendants were convicted (Montoya per se DWI; Yap per either per se or impairment to slightest degree). District court affirmed; this Court reviews admission for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of BAT results absent an uncertainty computation | SLD-approved testing and regulatory compliance presumptively reliable; defendants must make an affirmative showing of unreliability | BAT results are inherently uncertain; without a computed uncertainty/confidence interval results are incomplete and therefore inadmissible | Admission not an abuse of discretion; defendants failed to make an affirmative showing that SLD scheme is unreliable in their specific cases |
| Whether measurement‑uncertainty evidence requires Rule 11‑702 (expert reliability) hearing | Reliability need not be relitigated absent affirmative showing; compliance with SLD regs is a predicate | Rule 11‑702 requires exclusion or a reliability hearing because uncertainty undermines probative value | Defendants could present expert evidence to attack weight; but here expert evidence did not show SLD scheme or specific results were unreliable enough to require exclusion |
| Exclusion under Rule 11‑403 (misleading the factfinder) | Probative value of BAT is high; general acceptance and protocols reduce danger of unfair prejudice or misleading the finder | BAT values without uncertainty can mislead by creating false aura of precision | Rule 11‑403 exclusion not warranted; probative value not substantially outweighed by danger of misleading the finder given record |
| Sufficiency of evidence for per se DWI where BAT = 0.08 (Yap) | Legislative choice of 0.08 as legal limit governs; courts must view evidence in light most favorable to verdict | Measurement uncertainty could mean true BAC might be below 0.08, making conviction unsupported beyond reasonable doubt | Sufficiency upheld; 0.08 SLD-approved result supports conviction on appeal absent an affirmative record showing unreliability in that result |
Key Cases Cited
- Bierner v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep’t, 113 N.M. 696, 831 P.2d 995 (N.M. Ct. App. 1992) (per se DWI requires BAC ≥ statutory limit)
- State v. Neal, 143 N.M. 341, 176 P.3d 330 (N.M. Ct. App. 2008) (conviction may rest on impairment to slightest degree absent per se BAC)
- State v. Dedman, 136 N.M. 561, 102 P.3d 628 (N.M. 2004) (compliance with accuracy‑ensuring regulations is predicate to admission of test results)
- State v. Fuentes, 147 N.M. 761, 228 P.3d 1181 (N.M. Ct. App. 2010) (absent affirmative showing of doubt, accepted scientific evidence need not undergo a Rule 11‑702 reliability hearing)
- California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (U.S. 1984) (recognition of breath testing accuracy and reliability in constitutional context)
- State v. Alberico, 116 N.M. 156, 861 P.2d 192 (N.M. 1993) (Rule 11‑702 and consideration of expert evidence and potential Rule 11‑403 balancing)