34 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2024 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Mexico courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Torresgreen2 sentences2016Torres, 1999-NMSC-010, ¶ 40 (stating that 18 the DRE’s inability to explain the scientific technique underlying the HGN test 14 1 constituted failure to satisfy the state’s Alberico-Daubert burden). 2016Torres, 1999-NMSC-010, ¶ 40 (stating that 18 the DRE’s inability to explain the scientific technique underlying the HGN test 14 1 constituted failure to satisfy the state’s Alberico-Daubert burden). | 8 | 14 |
State v. Andersongreen2 sentences2003See, e.g., Torres, 1999-NMSC-010 , 127 N.M. 20 , 976 P.2d 20 , (Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test); State v. Stills, 1998-NMSC-009 , 125 N.M. 66 , 957 P.2d 51 (DNA test); State v. Morales, 2002-NMCA-052, ¶ 8 , 132 N.M. 146 , 45 P.3d 406 (field test used to determine if a substance was heroin); State v. Lasworth, 2002-NMCA-029, ¶ 12 , 131 N.M. 739 , 42 P.3d 844 (HGN test); State v. Anderson, 118 N.M. 284 , 881 P.2d 29 (1994) (DNA test). 2003See, e.g., Torres, 1999-NMSC-010 , 127 N.M. 20 , 976 P.2d 20 , (Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test); State v. Stills, 1998-NMSC-009 , 125 N.M. 66 , 957 P.2d 51 (DNA test); State v. Morales, 2002-NMCA-052, ¶ 8 , 132 N.M. 146 , 45 P.3d 406 (field test used to determine if a substance was heroin); State v. Lasworth, 2002-NMCA-029, ¶ 12 , 131 N.M. 739 , 42 P.3d 844 (HGN test); State v. Anderson, 118 N.M. 284 , 881 P.2d 29 (1994) (DNA test). | 3 | 4 |
State v. Lasworthgreen2 sentences2023Compare Wisdom, 2017- NMCA-066, ¶¶ 26, 30 (discussing the officer’s testimony concerning administration of the HGN test and his observation of the defendant’s performance on the test, and concluding that it was unnecessary to establish the scientific or technical reliability of field sobriety tests (FSTs) prior to admitting the testimony), with State v. Lasworth, 2002-NMCA-029, ¶¶ 8, 28 , 131 N.M. 739 , 42 P.3d 844 (concluding that the trial court properly excluded the results of the HGN FST where “[t]he officer testified that on the HGN FST, Defendant demonstrated a ‘lack of smooth pursuit’ i 2023Compare Wisdom, 2017- NMCA-066, ¶¶ 26, 30 (discussing the officer’s testimony concerning administration of the HGN test and his observation of the defendant’s performance on the test, and concluding that it was unnecessary to establish the scientific or technical reliability of field sobriety tests (FSTs) prior to admitting the testimony), with State v. Lasworth, 2002-NMCA-029, ¶¶ 8, 28 , 131 N.M. 739 , 42 P.3d 844 (concluding that the trial court properly excluded the results of the HGN FST where “[t]he officer testified that on the HGN FST, Defendant demonstrated a ‘lack of smooth pursuit’ i | 2 | 5 |
State v. Albericogreen2 sentences2008We agree. "[I]t is error to admit expert testimony involving scientific knowledge unless the party offering such testimony first establishes the evidentiary reliability of the scientific knowledge." State v. Torres, 1999-NMSC-010, ¶ 24 , 127 N.M. 20 , 976 P.2d 20 (citing State v. Alberico, 116 N.M. 156, 166-69 , 861 P.2d 192, 202-05 (1993)); see Rule 11-702 (providing foundation requirements for expert testimony). 2001INTRODUCTION {1} In State v. Torres, 1999-NMSC-010, ¶ 30 , 127 N.M. 20 , 976 P.2d 20 , the Supreme Court held that the results of a horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) field sobriety test constitute scientific evidence within the meaning of Rule 11-702 NMRA 2001 when offered by the State against a defendant in a prosecution for driving while intoxicated; and, that HGN test results may not be admitted unless the State, as the proponent of HGN evidence, has demonstrated that such evidence meets the evidentiary reliability standard adopted by the Supreme Court in State v. Alberico, 116 N.M. 156 , 861 | 2 | 3 |
Sanchez v. Stategreen2 sentences2001See Sanchez v. State, 103 N.M. 25, 27 , 702 P.2d 345, 347 (1985) (stating the test for harmless error). 2001See Sanchez v. State, 103 N.M. 25, 27 , 702 P.2d 345, 347 (1985) (stating the test for harmless error). | 2 | 2 |
State v. McDonaldgreen2 sentences2001See State v. McDonald, 1998-NMSC-034, ¶ 26 , 126 N.M. 44 , 966 P.2d 752 (holding denial of mistrial will not be disturbed absent a showing of abuse of discretion). 2001See State v. McDonald, 1998-NMSC-034, ¶ 26 , 126 N.M. 44 , 966 P.2d 752 (holding denial of mistrial will not be disturbed absent a showing of abuse of discretion). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Vialpandogreen2 sentences2001See, e.g., State v. Anderson, 118 N.M. 284, 303 , 881 P.2d 29, 48 (1994) (recognizing questions concerning test results or statistical probabilities go to the weight of the evidence and are the concerns of the fact finder); State v. Vialpando, 93 N.M. 289, 292 , 599 P.2d 1086, 1089 (Ct.App. 1979) (same) Defendant’s Motion for Mistrial Regarding the HGN Test {13} Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a mistrial after Officer Harzewski made an impermissible reference to the HGN test in his testimony. 2001See, e.g., State v. Anderson, 118 N.M. 284, 303 , 881 P.2d 29, 48 (1994) (recognizing questions concerning test results or statistical probabilities go to the weight of the evidence and are the concerns of the fact finder); State v. Vialpando, 93 N.M. 289, 292 , 599 P.2d 1086, 1089 (Ct.App. 1979) (same) Defendant’s Motion for Mistrial Regarding the HGN Test {13} Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a mistrial after Officer Harzewski made an impermissible reference to the HGN test in his testimony. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Albericogreen2 sentences2008We agree. "[I]t is error to admit expert testimony involving scientific knowledge unless the party offering such testimony first establishes the evidentiary reliability of the scientific knowledge." State v. Torres, 1999-NMSC-010, ¶ 24 , 127 N.M. 20 , 976 P.2d 20 (citing State v. Alberico, 116 N.M. 156, 166-69 , 861 P.2d 192, 202-05 (1993)); see Rule 11-702 (providing foundation requirements for expert testimony). 2001INTRODUCTION {1} In State v. Torres, 1999-NMSC-010, ¶ 30 , 127 N.M. 20 , 976 P.2d 20 , the Supreme Court held that the results of a horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) field sobriety test constitute scientific evidence within the meaning of Rule 11-702 NMRA 2001 when offered by the State against a defendant in a prosecution for driving while intoxicated; and, that HGN test results may not be admitted unless the State, as the proponent of HGN evidence, has demonstrated that such evidence meets the evidentiary reliability standard adopted by the Supreme Court in State v. Alberico, 116 N.M. 156 , 861 | 1 | 3 |
State v. Christmasgreen2 sentences2023Compare Wisdom, 2017- NMCA-066, ¶¶ 26, 30 (discussing the officer’s testimony concerning administration of the HGN test and his observation of the defendant’s performance on the test, and concluding that it was unnecessary to establish the scientific or technical reliability of field sobriety tests (FSTs) prior to admitting the testimony), with State v. Lasworth, 2002-NMCA-029, ¶¶ 8, 28 , 131 N.M. 739 , 42 P.3d 844 (concluding that the trial court properly excluded the results of the HGN FST where “[t]he officer testified that on the HGN FST, Defendant demonstrated a ‘lack of smooth pursuit’ i 2023Compare Wisdom, 2017- NMCA-066, ¶¶ 26, 30 (discussing the officer’s testimony concerning administration of the HGN test and his observation of the defendant’s performance on the test, and concluding that it was unnecessary to establish the scientific or technical reliability of field sobriety tests (FSTs) prior to admitting the testimony), with State v. Lasworth, 2002-NMCA-029, ¶¶ 8, 28 , 131 N.M. 739 , 42 P.3d 844 (concluding that the trial court properly excluded the results of the HGN FST where “[t]he officer testified that on the HGN FST, Defendant demonstrated a ‘lack of smooth pursuit’ i | 1 | 2 |
State v. Christmasgreen2 sentences2023Compare Wisdom, 2017- NMCA-066, ¶¶ 26, 30 (discussing the officer’s testimony concerning administration of the HGN test and his observation of the defendant’s performance on the test, and concluding that it was unnecessary to establish the scientific or technical reliability of field sobriety tests (FSTs) prior to admitting the testimony), with State v. Lasworth, 2002-NMCA-029, ¶¶ 8, 28 , 131 N.M. 739 , 42 P.3d 844 (concluding that the trial court properly excluded the results of the HGN FST where “[t]he officer testified that on the HGN FST, Defendant demonstrated a ‘lack of smooth pursuit’ i 2023Compare Wisdom, 2017- NMCA-066, ¶¶ 26, 30 (discussing the officer’s testimony concerning administration of the HGN test and his observation of the defendant’s performance on the test, and concluding that it was unnecessary to establish the scientific or technical reliability of field sobriety tests (FSTs) prior to admitting the testimony), with State v. Lasworth, 2002-NMCA-029, ¶¶ 8, 28 , 131 N.M. 739 , 42 P.3d 844 (concluding that the trial court properly excluded the results of the HGN FST where “[t]he officer testified that on the HGN FST, Defendant demonstrated a ‘lack of smooth pursuit’ i | 1 | 2 |
State v. Marquezgreen2 sentences2014In the present case, Officer Valentino’s testimony and the 2 court’s finding were based on a failed understanding of the purpose of the SFSTs. 3 {14} New Mexico courts recognize that the SFSTs’ designed purpose “is to 4 discriminate between drivers above and below the statutory BAC limit, not to measure 5 driving impairment.” Lasworth, 2002-NMCA-029, ¶ 15 (emphasis added) (internal 6 quotation marks and citation omitted); State v. Martinez, 2002-NMCA-043, ¶¶ 19-20 , 7 132 N.M. 101 , 45 P.3d 41 (recognizing the purpose of the SFSTs to predict the 8 BAC); State v. Marquez, 2009-NMSC-055, ¶ 18 , 2014In the present case, Officer Valentino’s testimony and the 2 court’s finding were based on a failed understanding of the purpose of the SFSTs. 3 {14} New Mexico courts recognize that the SFSTs’ designed purpose “is to 4 discriminate between drivers above and below the statutory BAC limit, not to measure 5 driving impairment.” Lasworth, 2002-NMCA-029, ¶ 15 (emphasis added) (internal 6 quotation marks and citation omitted); State v. Martinez, 2002-NMCA-043, ¶¶ 19-20 , 7 132 N.M. 101 , 45 P.3d 41 (recognizing the purpose of the SFSTs to predict the 8 BAC); State v. Marquez, 2009-NMSC-055, ¶ 18 , | 1 | 2 |
Muse v. Musegreen2 sentences2023See Muse v. Muse, 2009-NMCA-003, ¶ 51 , 145 N.M. 451 , 200 P.3d 104 (“It is not our practice to rely on assertions of counsel unaccompanied by support in the record. 2023See Muse v. Muse, 2009-NMCA-003, ¶ 51 , 145 N.M. 451 , 200 P.3d 104 (“It is not our practice to rely on assertions of counsel unaccompanied by support in the record. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Nealgreen2 sentences2018See e.g., State v. Neal, 2008-NMCA-008, ¶ 29 , 143 N.M. 341 , 176 14 P.3d 330 (holding sufficient evidence to convict the defendant on a DWI charge when 15 the defendant smelled of alcohol, had bloodshot and watery eyes, veered over the 16 shoulder line three times, swayed, and failed to follow officer instructions on field 17 sobriety tests). 2018See e.g., State v. Neal, 2008-NMCA-008, ¶ 29 , 143 N.M. 341 , 176 14 P.3d 330 (holding sufficient evidence to convict the defendant on a DWI charge when 15 the defendant smelled of alcohol, had bloodshot and watery eyes, veered over the 16 shoulder line three times, swayed, and failed to follow officer instructions on field 17 sobriety tests). | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Jacksongreen | 1 | 1 |
State v. Barbergreen2 sentences2010See, e.g., State v. Barber, 2004-NMSC-019, ¶ 28 , 135 N.M. 9 621, 92 P.3d 633 (holding that, other than the location of the drugs, the State 10 presented evidence establishing a direct connection between the drugs and the 11 accused, thereby creating an inference of control). 2010See, e.g., State v. Barber, 2004-NMSC-019, ¶ 28 , 135 N.M. 9 621, 92 P.3d 633 (holding that, other than the location of the drugs, the State 10 presented evidence establishing a direct connection between the drugs and the 11 accused, thereby creating an inference of control). | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Contrerasgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Maezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Sosagreen | 1 | 1 |
State v. Durangreen2 sentences2010Deputy Herrera initiated a 12 traffic stop after observing that the registration on Defendant’s vehicle had expired. 13 [MIO 4] After observing that Defendant’s eyes were bloodshot and watery, Deputy 14 Herrera questioned Defendant about alcohol consumption [MIO 4] and administered 15 an HGN test. [MIO 5] Although Defendant did not display the classic signs of 16 impairment, his pupils failed to react normally to the flashlight. [MIO 5] Deputy 17 Herrera explained that in his experience, this is consistent with the use of narcotics. 18 [MIO 5] He therefore asked Defendant whether he had taken 2010Deputy Herrera initiated a 12 traffic stop after observing that the registration on Defendant’s vehicle had expired. 13 [MIO 4] After observing that Defendant’s eyes were bloodshot and watery, Deputy 14 Herrera questioned Defendant about alcohol consumption [MIO 4] and administered 15 an HGN test. [MIO 5] Although Defendant did not display the classic signs of 16 impairment, his pupils failed to react normally to the flashlight. [MIO 5] Deputy 17 Herrera explained that in his experience, this is consistent with the use of narcotics. 18 [MIO 5] He therefore asked Defendant whether he had taken | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sosagreen2 sentences2010See State v. Sosa, 2008-NMCA-134, ¶ 26 , 3 145 N.M. 68 , 193 P.3d 955 (considering a challenge to be unpreserved when no 4 objection was made to the witness’ qualifications to testify about general matters 5 concerning drugs), rev’d on other grounds by 2009-NMSC-056 , ___ N.M. ___, ___ 6 P.3d ___ . 7 Defendant also argues that the validity of the continuing detention and drug- 8 related inquiry after the administration of the HGN test should be deemed 9 impermissible in light of heightened protections afforded by the New Mexico 10 Constitution. [MIO 22-23] Once again, however, Defendant’s argu 2010See State v. Sosa, 2008-NMCA-134, ¶ 26 , 3 145 N.M. 68 , 193 P.3d 955 (considering a challenge to be unpreserved when no 4 objection was made to the witness’ qualifications to testify about general matters 5 concerning drugs), rev’d on other grounds by 2009-NMSC-056 , ___ N.M. ___, ___ 6 P.3d ___ . 7 Defendant also argues that the validity of the continuing detention and drug- 8 related inquiry after the administration of the HGN test should be deemed 9 impermissible in light of heightened protections afforded by the New Mexico 10 Constitution. [MIO 22-23] Once again, however, Defendant’s argu | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Contrerasgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Klawittergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Williams v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| City of Albuquerque v. Haywoodgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Wernergreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Forfeiture of ($28,000.00)green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Merrittgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Superior Courtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Ruthardtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Meadorgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Leahygreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Franklingreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Woodwardgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Boyergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| State v. Gutierrezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Marquez
green
2 sentences2010Because this particular argument was not raised in Defendant’s docketing 3 statement, we consider Defendant’s argument as a motion to amend the docketing 4 statement to add the issue of whether the testimony was wrongfully admitted. 5 Defendant argues that admission of Officer Sexton’s testimony was comparable 6 to the wrongfully admitted testimony addressed in State v. Marquez, 2008-NMCA- 7 133, ¶ 25, 145 N.M. 31 , 193 P.3d 578 , rev’d in part, 2009-NMSC-055 , ___ N.M. ___, 8 ___ P.3d ___. [MIO 13] In Marquez, the officer testified that, “based on the clues 9 of all three field sobriety tests 2010Because this particular argument was not raised in Defendant’s docketing 3 statement, we consider Defendant’s argument as a motion to amend the docketing 4 statement to add the issue of whether the testimony was wrongfully admitted. 5 Defendant argues that admission of Officer Sexton’s testimony was comparable 6 to the wrongfully admitted testimony addressed in State v. Marquez, 2008-NMCA- 7 133, ¶ 25, 145 N.M. 31 , 193 P.3d 578 , rev’d in part, 2009-NMSC-055 , ___ N.M. ___, 8 ___ P.3d ___. [MIO 13] In Marquez, the officer testified that, “based on the clues 9 of all three field sobriety tests | 3 | 2009–2010 |
State v. Duarte
green
2 sentences2016The district court agreed that the additional conversation and the abbreviated HGN test were not part of the script, but relying on State v. Duarte, 2007-NMCA-012 , 140 N.M. 930 , 149 P.3d 1027 , determined that these actions did not unreasonably expand the stop, nor were they more invasive than removing Defendant from his vehicle to perform FSTs, which was the next step in the tact plan. 2016The district court agreed that the additional conversation and the abbreviated HGN test were not part of the script, but relying on State v. Duarte, 2007-NMCA-012 , 140 N.M. 930 , 149 P.3d 1027 , determined that these actions did not unreasonably expand the stop, nor were they more invasive than removing Defendant from his vehicle to perform FSTs, which was the next step in the tact plan. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Leyva
green
2 sentences2016State v. Leyva, 2011-NMSC-009, ¶ 10 , 149 N.M. 435 , 250 P.3d 861 . 2016State v. Leyva, 2011-NMSC-009, ¶ 10 , 149 N.M. 435 , 250 P.3d 861 . | 2 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Stills
green
2 sentences2003See, e.g., Torres, 1999-NMSC-010 , 127 N.M. 20 , 976 P.2d 20 , (Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test); State v. Stills, 1998-NMSC-009 , 125 N.M. 66 , 957 P.2d 51 (DNA test); State v. Morales, 2002-NMCA-052, ¶ 8 , 132 N.M. 146 , 45 P.3d 406 (field test used to determine if a substance was heroin); State v. Lasworth, 2002-NMCA-029, ¶ 12 , 131 N.M. 739 , 42 P.3d 844 (HGN test); State v. Anderson, 118 N.M. 284 , 881 P.2d 29 (1994) (DNA test). 2003See, e.g., Torres, 1999-NMSC-010 , 127 N.M. 20 , 976 P.2d 20 , (Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test); State v. Stills, 1998-NMSC-009 , 125 N.M. 66 , 957 P.2d 51 (DNA test); State v. Morales, 2002-NMCA-052, ¶ 8 , 132 N.M. 146 , 45 P.3d 406 (field test used to determine if a substance was heroin); State v. Lasworth, 2002-NMCA-029, ¶ 12 , 131 N.M. 739 , 42 P.3d 844 (HGN test); State v. Anderson, 118 N.M. 284 , 881 P.2d 29 (1994) (DNA test). | 2 | 1999–2003 |
State v. Pickett
green
2 sentences2023In our notice of proposed disposition, we proposed to adopt the district court’s analysis of this issue, including its conclusion that the video evidence did not constitute scientific evidence. [CN 2] In her memorandum in opposition, Defendant claims that the officer testified “as to the results of the [HGN] test and the video showed the results of the test.” [MIO 10] We disagree. {5} Concerning the officer’s testimony, Defendant admits that the officer did not provide any opinions or conclusions about the results of the HGN test, including whether Defendant’s eyes manifested HGN. [MIO 10] Def 2023In our notice of proposed disposition, we proposed to adopt the district court’s analysis of this issue, including its conclusion that the video evidence did not constitute scientific evidence. [CN 2] In her memorandum in opposition, Defendant claims that the officer testified “as to the results of the [HGN] test and the video showed the results of the test.” [MIO 10] We disagree. {5} Concerning the officer’s testimony, Defendant admits that the officer did not provide any opinions or conclusions about the results of the HGN test, including whether Defendant’s eyes manifested HGN. [MIO 10] Def | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Town of Taos v. Wisdom
green
1 sentence2023In our notice of proposed disposition, we proposed to adopt the district court’s analysis of this issue, including its conclusion that the video evidence did not constitute scientific evidence. [CN 2] In her memorandum in opposition, Defendant claims that the officer testified “as to the results of the [HGN] test and the video showed the results of the test.” [MIO 10] We disagree. {5} Concerning the officer’s testimony, Defendant admits that the officer did not provide any opinions or conclusions about the results of the HGN test, including whether Defendant’s eyes manifested HGN. [MIO 10] Def | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Peterson
green
2 sentences2016State v. Peterson, 2014-NMCA-008, ¶ 4 , 315 P.3d 354 . 2016State v. Peterson, 2014-NMCA-008, ¶ 4 , 315 P.3d 354 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Aleman
green
2 sentences2014Moreover, the district court did not 7 rely on the HGN testing when relating the officers’s observations and concluding that 8 they were properly admitted. [RP 179] We further conclude that Defendant’s analogy 9 to State v. Aleman, 2008-NMCA-137 , 145 N.M. 79 , 194 P.3d 110 , is misguided [MIO 10 4-5] because Aleman addresses the admissibility of testimony based upon the DRE 11 protocol, id. ¶ 18, as opposed to an officer’s observations of a suspect’s performance 12 on field sobriety tests. 13 {6} While field sobriety tests are the product of an officer’s specialized knowledge 14 and training 2014Moreover, the district court did not 7 rely on the HGN testing when relating the officers’s observations and concluding that 8 they were properly admitted. [RP 179] We further conclude that Defendant’s analogy 9 to State v. Aleman, 2008-NMCA-137 , 145 N.M. 79 , 194 P.3d 110 , is misguided [MIO 10 4-5] because Aleman addresses the admissibility of testimony based upon the DRE 11 protocol, id. ¶ 18, as opposed to an officer’s observations of a suspect’s performance 12 on field sobriety tests. 13 {6} While field sobriety tests are the product of an officer’s specialized knowledge 14 and training | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Castañeda
green
2 sentences2014Moreover, the district court did not 7 rely on the HGN testing when relating the officers’s observations and concluding that 8 they were properly admitted. [RP 179] We further conclude that Defendant’s analogy 9 to State v. Aleman, 2008-NMCA-137 , 145 N.M. 79 , 194 P.3d 110 , is misguided [MIO 10 4-5] because Aleman addresses the admissibility of testimony based upon the DRE 11 protocol, id. ¶ 18, as opposed to an officer’s observations of a suspect’s performance 12 on field sobriety tests. 13 {6} While field sobriety tests are the product of an officer’s specialized knowledge 14 and training 2014Moreover, the district court did not 7 rely on the HGN testing when relating the officers’s observations and concluding that 8 they were properly admitted. [RP 179] We further conclude that Defendant’s analogy 9 to State v. Aleman, 2008-NMCA-137 , 145 N.M. 79 , 194 P.3d 110 , is misguided [MIO 10 4-5] because Aleman addresses the admissibility of testimony based upon the DRE 11 protocol, id. ¶ 18, as opposed to an officer’s observations of a suspect’s performance 12 on field sobriety tests. 13 {6} While field sobriety tests are the product of an officer’s specialized knowledge 14 and training | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Tollardo
green
2 sentences2014In the present case, Officer Valentino’s testimony and the 2 court’s finding were based on a failed understanding of the purpose of the SFSTs. 3 {14} New Mexico courts recognize that the SFSTs’ designed purpose “is to 4 discriminate between drivers above and below the statutory BAC limit, not to measure 5 driving impairment.” Lasworth, 2002-NMCA-029, ¶ 15 (emphasis added) (internal 6 quotation marks and citation omitted); State v. Martinez, 2002-NMCA-043, ¶¶ 19-20 , 7 132 N.M. 101 , 45 P.3d 41 (recognizing the purpose of the SFSTs to predict the 8 BAC); State v. Marquez, 2009-NMSC-055, ¶ 18 , 2014In the present case, Officer Valentino’s testimony and the 2 court’s finding were based on a failed understanding of the purpose of the SFSTs. 3 {14} New Mexico courts recognize that the SFSTs’ designed purpose “is to 4 discriminate between drivers above and below the statutory BAC limit, not to measure 5 driving impairment.” Lasworth, 2002-NMCA-029, ¶ 15 (emphasis added) (internal 6 quotation marks and citation omitted); State v. Martinez, 2002-NMCA-043, ¶¶ 19-20 , 7 132 N.M. 101 , 45 P.3d 41 (recognizing the purpose of the SFSTs to predict the 8 BAC); State v. Marquez, 2009-NMSC-055, ¶ 18 , | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Silva
green
2 sentences2014In the memorandum, Defendant continues to argue that the State 8 did not present sufficient evidence of a per se violation given the margin of error for 9 breath tests and the evidence that Defendant was still in the absorption phase at the 10 time he drove the car. [MIO 10] Defendant also contends that since the evidence was 11 insufficient to provide probable cause for arresting defendant for DWI (Issue 1), the 12 totality of the evidence was not sufficiently compelling to support his conviction. 13 [MIO 11] We are not persuaded. 14 {8} NMSA 1978, Section 66-8-102(C)(1) (2010) provides that 2014In the memorandum, Defendant continues to argue that the State 8 did not present sufficient evidence of a per se violation given the margin of error for 9 breath tests and the evidence that Defendant was still in the absorption phase at the 10 time he drove the car. [MIO 10] Defendant also contends that since the evidence was 11 insufficient to provide probable cause for arresting defendant for DWI (Issue 1), the 12 totality of the evidence was not sufficiently compelling to support his conviction. 13 [MIO 11] We are not persuaded. 14 {8} NMSA 1978, Section 66-8-102(C)(1) (2010) provides that | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Castaneda
green
2 sentences2014Moreover, the district court did not 7 rely on the HGN testing when relating the officers’s observations and concluding that 8 they were properly admitted. [RP 179] We further conclude that Defendant’s analogy 9 to State v. Aleman, 2008-NMCA-137 , 145 N.M. 79 , 194 P.3d 110 , is misguided [MIO 10 4-5] because Aleman addresses the admissibility of testimony based upon the DRE 11 protocol, id. ¶ 18, as opposed to an officer’s observations of a suspect’s performance 12 on field sobriety tests. 13 {6} While field sobriety tests are the product of an officer’s specialized knowledge 14 and training 2014Moreover, the district court did not 7 rely on the HGN testing when relating the officers’s observations and concluding that 8 they were properly admitted. [RP 179] We further conclude that Defendant’s analogy 9 to State v. Aleman, 2008-NMCA-137 , 145 N.M. 79 , 194 P.3d 110 , is misguided [MIO 10 4-5] because Aleman addresses the admissibility of testimony based upon the DRE 11 protocol, id. ¶ 18, as opposed to an officer’s observations of a suspect’s performance 12 on field sobriety tests. 13 {6} While field sobriety tests are the product of an officer’s specialized knowledge 14 and training | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Martinez
green
2 sentences2014In the present case, Officer Valentino’s testimony and the 2 court’s finding were based on a failed understanding of the purpose of the SFSTs. 3 {14} New Mexico courts recognize that the SFSTs’ designed purpose “is to 4 discriminate between drivers above and below the statutory BAC limit, not to measure 5 driving impairment.” Lasworth, 2002-NMCA-029, ¶ 15 (emphasis added) (internal 6 quotation marks and citation omitted); State v. Martinez, 2002-NMCA-043, ¶¶ 19-20 , 7 132 N.M. 101 , 45 P.3d 41 (recognizing the purpose of the SFSTs to predict the 8 BAC); State v. Marquez, 2009-NMSC-055, ¶ 18 , 2014In the present case, Officer Valentino’s testimony and the 2 court’s finding were based on a failed understanding of the purpose of the SFSTs. 3 {14} New Mexico courts recognize that the SFSTs’ designed purpose “is to 4 discriminate between drivers above and below the statutory BAC limit, not to measure 5 driving impairment.” Lasworth, 2002-NMCA-029, ¶ 15 (emphasis added) (internal 6 quotation marks and citation omitted); State v. Martinez, 2002-NMCA-043, ¶¶ 19-20 , 7 132 N.M. 101 , 45 P.3d 41 (recognizing the purpose of the SFSTs to predict the 8 BAC); State v. Marquez, 2009-NMSC-055, ¶ 18 , | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Sims
green
1 sentence2012The Court of Appeals affirmed Schuster’s first two issues in a memorandum opinion, declining to grant certiorari on Schuster’s third issue of whether the district court erred in affirming MVD despite its reliance on the results of the HGN test, id., and therefore did not address it. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| State v. Funderburg green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| State v. Williamson green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| State v. Lowe green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| State v. Rackley green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Gardner green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Downey green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. RIVAS-MARTINEZ green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Morales green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| State v. Burke red | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| People v. Vega green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.