State v. Norman
35,809
N.M. Ct. App.Mar 7, 2017Background
- Defendant was convicted in metropolitan court for driving while under the influence (DWI); the district court affirmed and Defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals.
- Officer Brown arrested Defendant after field sobriety tests and an evidentiary breath test; breath card results were 0.11 and 0.09.
- Defendant challenged (1) probable cause for arrest based on field sobriety tests and other evidence, (2) foundational admissibility of the breath card arguing noncompliance with SLD RFI-testing regulations/SOP, and (3) sufficiency of evidence for per se DWI (0.08 within three hours).
- APD key operator Wayne DeChano testified about RFI testing procedures and explained technological changes (single channel capturing multiple frequencies) that, according to him, satisfied the SOP’s spirit though not its literal words.
- The Court of Appeals issued a calendar notice proposing to adopt the district court’s memorandum opinion; Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition raising no persuasive new arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause for arrest | Evidence from field sobriety tests and officer observations supported arrest | Tests and evidence insufficient to establish probable cause | Affirmed: district court opinion adopted; Defendant raised no new persuasive points |
| Foundational admissibility of breath card (RFI testing) | State: instrument evaluated for RFI; DeChano’s testimony satisfied SOP’s requirements and the regulation’s purpose | SOP not strictly followed; APD procedures differed from BCSO; machine unreliable (margin of error, last check months earlier) | Affirmed: strict mechanical compliance not required; DeChano’s testimony and evidence about tech changes sufficed; reliability/uncertainty go to weight, not admissibility |
| Sufficiency of evidence for per se DWI (BAC ≥ .08 within 3 hours) | Breath results 0.11 and 0.09 prove BAC ≥ .08 within statutory time | Breath results/ foundation insufficient to prove element | Affirmed: admitted breath results satisfied element; Defendant raised no new arguments |
| Reviewability of undeveloped/uncited arguments | N/A | Defendant relied on undeveloped claims and cited no authority | Court declined to consider undeveloped/uncited arguments; per appellate standards |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. Cornejo, 208 P.3d 443 (N.M. Ct. App. 2009) (courts may depart from plain meaning to avoid absurd or unreasonable statutory constructions)
- State v. Vigil-Giron, 327 P.3d 1129 (N.M. Ct. App. 2014) (issues unsupported by cited authority need not be considered on appeal)
- State v. Guerra, 278 P.3d 1031 (N.M. 2012) (appellate courts are not obligated to review unclear or undeveloped arguments)
- State v. Montoya, 382 P.3d 948 (N.M. Ct. App. 2016) (challenges based on measurement uncertainty affect weight for the jury, not admissibility)
- State v. Mondragon, 759 P.2d 1003 (N.M. Ct. App. 1988) (responding to a summary calendar notice requires pointing out specific errors of law or fact)