State v. Perkins, 35,835

Defendant (Matthew Perkins) was convicted of driving while intoxicated in Eddy County and appealed.
At trial, the State’s expert, Dr. Hwang, testified he did not perform or observe the blood test nor train the analyst who did, but reviewed the gas chromatograph data and paperwork.
Dr. Hwang testified he formed an independent opinion that the blood contained marijuana and methamphetamine and that Defendant was impaired; he also considered other evidence (e.g., speeding).
Defendant moved to sever a driving-on-revoked-license charge (based on a prior DWI) under Rule 5-203(C); parties later stipulated the license was revoked without stating the basis.
Defendant argued (1) admission of Dr. Hwang’s opinion violated his Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights and (2) the district court erred denying severance; he also withdrew a Rule 11-106 (completeness) claim for lack of record support.

Issue	State's Argument	Perkins' Argument	Held
Confrontation Clause: admission of expert opinion based on non-testifying analyst's data	Hwang independently reviewed raw GC data and formed his own expert opinion — admissible	Testimony violated Confrontation Clause because expert relied on non-testifying analyst's work	Court affirmed: no violation where expert independently reviewed raw data and formed opinion (Huettl controlling)
Severance under Rule 5-203(C) for driving-on-revoked-license	Joinder did not prejudice defendant; parties stipulated revocation without basis and no evidence of prior DWI was introduced	Joinder was prejudicial because revocation stemmed from prior DWI	Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; no prejudicial evidence of prior revocation basis was admitted
Rule 11-106 completeness claim (recording not fully played)	N/A (State did not oppose on merits)	Claimed completeness rule required full recording be played	Withdrawn by Perkins for lack of factual support in the record; not reviewed

State v. Huettl, 305 P.3d 956 (N.M. Ct. App. 2013) (Confrontation Clause not violated where expert independently reviewed raw data and formed his own opinion)
State v. Moncayo, 284 P.3d 423 (N.M. Ct. App. 2012) (Confrontation Clause violated where witness testified to non-testifying analyst’s conclusions rather than an independent opinion)
State v. Flores, 340 P.3d 622 (N.M. Ct. App. 2015) (standard of review for severance motions is abuse of discretion)
State v. Dominguez, 171 P.3d 750 (N.M. 2007) (severance discretionary; abuse shown if prejudicial, inadmissible testimony admitted in joint trial)
State v. Haddenham, 793 P.2d 279 (N.M. Ct. App. 1990) (issues lacking factual record support will not be reviewed)