walk-and-turn test in New Mexico

2023See State v. Neal, 2008-NMCA-008, ¶ 29 , 143 N.M. 341 , 176 P.3d 330 (holding that there was sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of DWI when the officer observed the defendant veer over the shoulder line, the defendant smelled of alcohol and had bloodshot and watery eyes, the defendant admitted to drinking, and the defendant showed signs of intoxication during the FSTs); State v. Soto, 2007-NMCA- 077, ¶ 34, 142 N.M. 32 , 162 P.3d 187 (holding there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction where officers observed the defendant driving, where the defendant admitted to drinking, a

2023See State v. Neal, 2008-NMCA-008, ¶ 29 , 143 N.M. 341 , 176 P.3d 330 (holding that there was sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of DWI when the officer observed the defendant veer over the shoulder line, the defendant smelled of alcohol and had bloodshot and watery eyes, the defendant admitted to drinking, and the defendant showed signs of intoxication during the FSTs); State v. Soto, 2007-NMCA- 077, ¶ 34, 142 N.M. 32 , 162 P.3d 187 (holding there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction where officers observed the defendant driving, where the defendant admitted to drinking, a

2023See State v. Neal, 2008-NMCA-008, ¶ 29 , 143 N.M. 341 , 176 P.3d 330 (holding that there was sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of DWI when the officer observed the defendant veer over the shoulder line, the defendant smelled of alcohol and had bloodshot and watery eyes, the defendant admitted to drinking, and the defendant showed signs of intoxication during the FSTs); State v. Soto, 2007-NMCA- 077, ¶ 34, 142 N.M. 32 , 162 P.3d 187 (holding there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction where officers observed the defendant driving, where the defendant admitted to drinking, a

2023See State v. Neal, 2008-NMCA-008, ¶ 29 , 143 N.M. 341 , 176 P.3d 330 (holding that there was sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of DWI when the officer observed the defendant veer over the shoulder line, the defendant smelled of alcohol and had bloodshot and watery eyes, the defendant admitted to drinking, and the defendant showed signs of intoxication during the FSTs); State v. Soto, 2007-NMCA- 077, ¶ 34, 142 N.M. 32 , 162 P.3d 187 (holding there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction where officers observed the defendant driving, where the defendant admitted to drinking, a

2024When asked by the district court whether he was experiencing vertigo at the time of the field sobriety tests, Defendant responded, “No, I just didn’t want to do the one-leg stand test.” N.M. 820, 242 P.3d 387 (finding that evidence was sufficient to justify a DUI conviction where the defendant drove his car recklessly at a high rate of speed, had bloodshot and watery eyes, smelled of alcohol, admitted to having consumed beer, and failed to adequately perform field sobriety tests as demonstrated by his lack of balance and inability to follow instructions); State v. Neal, 2008-NMCA-008, ¶ 29 , 1

2024When asked by the district court whether he was experiencing vertigo at the time of the field sobriety tests, Defendant responded, “No, I just didn’t want to do the one-leg stand test.” N.M. 820, 242 P.3d 387 (finding that evidence was sufficient to justify a DUI conviction where the defendant drove his car recklessly at a high rate of speed, had bloodshot and watery eyes, smelled of alcohol, admitted to having consumed beer, and failed to adequately perform field sobriety tests as demonstrated by his lack of balance and inability to follow instructions); State v. Neal, 2008-NMCA-008, ¶ 29 , 1

2023See Granillo-Macias, 2008-NMCA-021, ¶¶ 6, 12 (holding that probable cause existed for a DWI arrest where the defendant smelled of alcohol, had difficulty balancing, and performed poorly on field sobriety tests); Sanchez, 2001-NMCA-109, ¶ 8 (holding that probable cause existed for a DWI arrest where the defendant smelled of alcohol, admitted to consuming alcohol, and the defendant’s eyes were bloodshot and watery).

2009She points out that the bloodshot eyes could have 11 been due to her contact lenses, smoking, and fatigue; that the sidewalk where the field 12 sobriety tests (FSTs) were performed was sloping, slippery, and cold on her bare feet; 13 that her performance on the FSTs was only slightly deficient; that the odor of alcohol 14 could have come from open containers found in the car; that neither an odor of alcohol 15 nor failure to pass the FSTs is, standing alone, proof of intoxication; and that her 16 breath test results of .06 and .07 were under the .08 threshold for per se DWI as 17 defined at Se

2024See Largo, 2012-NMSC-015, ¶¶ 30, 35 ; Estrada, 2001-NMCA-034, ¶ 41 . {22} Defendant further disputes the district court’s findings regarding his performance on the walk-and-turn test, arguing they are unsupported by sufficient evidence.

2024See, e.g., State v. Nevarez, 2010-NMCA-049, ¶¶ 34, 36 , 148 1The record reveals that, prior to Defendant taking the walk-and-turn test, Defendant told Officer Rodarte that he did not have any conditions that would affect his ability to walk, turn, or stand.

2024See, e.g., State v. Vigil-Giron, 2014-NMCA-069, ¶ 60 , 327 P.3d 1129 (providing that “appellate courts will not consider an issue if no authority is cited in support of the issue and that, given no cited authority, we assume no such authority exists”).

2023See Cunningham, 2000-NMSC-009, ¶ 26 , 128 N.M. 711 , 998 P.2d 176 . {3} Here, although the officer acknowledged that he did not observe Defendant fail to maintain his lane or drive in a way that would imply impairment, the State presented other evidence to show that Defendant was impaired. [MIO 8] The officer testified that he smelled alcohol, Defendant had bloodshot, watery eyes, and that Defendant admitted to drinking his last beer two and a half hours before driving. [MIO 4] The officer further testified that during the FSTs, Defendant was unable to maintain the starting position, missed he

2023See Cunningham, 2000-NMSC-009, ¶ 26 , 128 N.M. 711 , 998 P.2d 176 . {3} Here, although the officer acknowledged that he did not observe Defendant fail to maintain his lane or drive in a way that would imply impairment, the State presented other evidence to show that Defendant was impaired. [MIO 8] The officer testified that he smelled alcohol, Defendant had bloodshot, watery eyes, and that Defendant admitted to drinking his last beer two and a half hours before driving. [MIO 4] The officer further testified that during the FSTs, Defendant was unable to maintain the starting position, missed he

2023See State v. Ruiz, 1995-NMCA-098 , ¶¶ 4, 24, 120 N.M. 534 , 903 P.2d 845 (concluding there was probable cause based on speeding and weaving, bloodshot watery eyes, slurred speech, the smell of alcohol, the defendant’s admission to drinking, and mixed results from field sobriety tests; see also State v. Soto, 2007-NMCA-077, ¶¶ 32-34 , 142 N.M. 32 , 162 P.3d 187 (holding that there was sufficient evidence to affirm a conviction for DWI, notwithstanding the officer’s failure to conduct field sobriety tests, based on the officers observations that Defendant had bloodshot watery eyes, slurred speec

2023See State v. Ruiz, 1995-NMCA-098 , ¶¶ 4, 24, 120 N.M. 534 , 903 P.2d 845 (concluding there was probable cause based on speeding and weaving, bloodshot watery eyes, slurred speech, the smell of alcohol, the defendant’s admission to drinking, and mixed results from field sobriety tests; see also State v. Soto, 2007-NMCA-077, ¶¶ 32-34 , 142 N.M. 32 , 162 P.3d 187 (holding that there was sufficient evidence to affirm a conviction for DWI, notwithstanding the officer’s failure to conduct field sobriety tests, based on the officers observations that Defendant had bloodshot watery eyes, slurred speec

2023See Granillo-Macias, 2008-NMCA-021, ¶¶ 6, 12 (holding that probable cause existed for a DWI arrest where the defendant smelled of alcohol, had difficulty balancing, and performed poorly on field sobriety tests); Sanchez, 2001-NMCA-109, ¶ 8 (holding that probable cause existed for a DWI arrest where the defendant smelled of alcohol, admitted to consuming alcohol, and the defendant’s eyes were bloodshot and watery).

2022See State v. Storey, 2018-NMCA-009, ¶ 48 , 410 P.3d 256 (holding that it was the jury’s role to evaluate the defendant’s explanations for his vehicle swerving and poor performance on the field sobriety tests to determine whether the defendant was capable of safely driving a vehicle). {5} Defendant suggests alternative interpretations of this evidence, but we decline to consider evidentiary inferences that support a result contrary to the jury’s verdict.

2022See State v. Storey, 2018-NMCA-009, ¶ 48 , 410 P.3d 256 (holding that it was the jury’s role to evaluate the defendant’s explanations for his vehicle swerving and poor performance on the field sobriety tests to determine whether the defendant was capable of safely driving a vehicle). {5} Defendant suggests alternative interpretations of this evidence, but we decline to consider evidentiary inferences that support a result contrary to the jury’s verdict.

2022See State v. Johnson, 1996-NMCA-117 , ¶ 21, 122 N.M. 713 , 930 P.2d 1165 (“On appeal, we are not limited to the record made on a motion to suppress, but may review the entire record to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress.”). {20} Considering the totality of the circumstances, we conclude it was objectively reasonable for the Officer to believe that Defendant had been driving while he was impaired to the slightest degree.

2022See State v. Johnson, 1996-NMCA-117 , ¶ 21, 122 N.M. 713 , 930 P.2d 1165 (“On appeal, we are not limited to the record made on a motion to suppress, but may review the entire record to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress.”). {20} Considering the totality of the circumstances, we conclude it was objectively reasonable for the Officer to believe that Defendant had been driving while he was impaired to the slightest degree.

2017See Rule 12-318(A)(3) NMRA (requiring citations to the record proper); see also Guest v. Berardinelli, 2008-NMCA-144, ¶ 25 , 145 N.M. 186 , 195 P.3d 353 (declining to address contentions that lack citation to the record proper). {33} As Defendant has not demonstrated that Officer Martinez failed to give proper instructions when administering the field sobriety tests, we hold that the district court did not commit error in considering and weighing them in its assessment of Defendant’s guilt.

2017See Rule 12-318(A)(3) NMRA (requiring citations to the record proper); see also Guest v. Berardinelli, 2008-NMCA-144, ¶ 25 , 145 N.M. 186 , 195 P.3d 353 (declining to address contentions that lack citation to the record proper). {33} As Defendant has not demonstrated that Officer Martinez failed to give proper instructions when administering the field sobriety tests, we hold that the district court did not commit error in considering and weighing them in its assessment of Defendant’s guilt.

2010Defendant stated that he had been at a friend’s house where he drank four 8 whiskeys. [MIO 2] Defendant did not indicate that he had any injuries, conditions, 9 or limitations that would affect his performance on field sobriety tests. [MIO 3] 10 Defendant did not perform well on the walk-and-turn test or the backward-count test. 11 Although Defendant argued that other factors could cause the conditions observed by 12 the officer and that other factors could affect Defendant’s performance on the field 13 sobriety tests, the question is whether the trial court’s “decision is supported by 14 subs

2010Defendant stated that he had been at a friend’s house where he drank four 8 whiskeys. [MIO 2] Defendant did not indicate that he had any injuries, conditions, 9 or limitations that would affect his performance on field sobriety tests. [MIO 3] 10 Defendant did not perform well on the walk-and-turn test or the backward-count test. 11 Although Defendant argued that other factors could cause the conditions observed by 12 the officer and that other factors could affect Defendant’s performance on the field 13 sobriety tests, the question is whether the trial court’s “decision is supported by 14 subs

2009See State 16 v. Notah-Hunter, 2005-NMCA-074, ¶ 24 , 137 N.M. 597 , 113 P.3d 867 (holding that 17 evidence that a defendant smelled of alcohol, had slurred speech, admitted to drinking 18 alcohol, failed field sobriety tests, and was driving erratically was sufficient to uphold 19 a conviction for DWI); see also State v. Soto, 2007-NMCA-077, ¶¶ 32, 34 , 142 N.M. 1 32 , 162 P.3d 187 (holding that there was sufficient evidence of DWI under the 2 impaired-to-the-slightest-degree standard even though the officers observed no 3 irregular driving, the defendant’s behavior was not irregular, he was co