Town of Taos v. Wisdom
2017 NMCA 66
| N.M. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On Feb. 13, 2015 Officer Luke Martinez responded to a vehicle accident involving Edwin Wisdom; witnesses placed Wisdom in the driver’s seat and operating the vehicle immediately after the crash.
- Officer Martinez smelled alcohol on Wisdom, who admitted to having “a few beers,” and administered three standardized field sobriety tests (HGN, walk-and-turn, one-leg-stand).
- Wisdom was arrested and submitted to an Intoxilyzer 8000 breath alcohol test; initial runs showed the machine’s calibration “out of tolerance,” a key operator inspected it, and a subsequent run produced two readings of 0.12.
- The Town introduced the machine’s SLD certification sticker (valid Oct. 1, 2014–Sept. 30, 2015) and logbook entries showing radio frequency interference (RFI) testing in Sept. 2013 and May 31, 2015; the department moved the machine in June 2013.
- Defense challenged (1) admissibility/reliability of BAT results (arguing missing RFI documentation and incorrect simulator temperature), (2) the officer’s field sobriety testimony as impermissible expert evidence, and (3) sufficiency of evidence linking impairment to driving. The district court convicted; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of BAT results (SLD compliance, RFI) | Town: certification sticker and RFI testing before and after the BAT satisfied foundational, "accuracy-ensuring" requirements | Wisdom: no RFI report for 2013 and therefore no proof of compliance with regulation | Admission proper: certification sticker + evidence of RFI tests surrounding the BAT date satisfied foundational showing; no abuse of discretion |
| BAT calibration (simulator temperature) | Town: operator testimony and wet-bath thermometer support that simulator met required temp; any confusion goes to weight | Wisdom: operator said simulator was 34°F (not °C), so calibration was improper and BAT unreliable | Court inferred thermometer used Celsius and accepted operator’s later explanation; conflict in testimony was for the factfinder; BAT results admissible |
| Officer testimony about field sobriety tests (lay vs. expert) | Town: officer may testify to administration and observations; he did not opine on impairment or BAC | Wisdom: officer’s training/specialized knowledge turned observations into expert (non-scientific) testimony requiring qualification and reliability foundation | Officer’s testimony treated as lay/fact testimony limited to perceptions and actions during tests; not expert opinion, so admissible |
| Sufficiency of evidence linking impairment to driving | Town: eyewitnesses saw Wisdom driving after crash; odor, admission, poor FST performance, and 0.12 BAC within ~30–40 minutes support past-driving DWI | Wisdom: could have parked then drank or drank between officer encounters; no adequate nexus to driving | Sufficient: circumstantial and witness evidence (including timing and BAC) permitted a rational factfinder to infer Wisdom drove while impaired; conviction upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Martinez, 141 N.M. 713 (N.M. 2007) (SLD certification sticker and limited foundational showing suffice for BAT admissibility)
- State v. Montoya, 382 P.3d 948 (N.M. Ct. App. 2016) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- State v. Mailman, 242 P.3d 269 (N.M. 2010) (circumstantial evidence can support past-driving DWI convictions)
- State v. Cotton, 263 P.3d 925 (N.M. Ct. App. 2011) (reversing where no evidence linked impairment to prior driving)
- State v. Pickett, 213 P.3d 805 (N.M. Ct. App. 2009) (officer observations during FSTs may be admissible as lay testimony; ‘‘clues’’ issue reviewed for harmless error)
- State v. Torres, 976 P.2d 20 (N.M. 1999) (standard for qualifying non-scientific experts and reviewing expert-admission rulings)
- State v. Lasworth, 42 P.3d 844 (N.M. Ct. App. 2002) (FSTs discriminate relative to statutory BAC limits rather than directly measuring driving impairment)