8 New Mexico opinions name it 1 courts 2009–2024 1 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. Notah-Huntergreen2 sentences2019Evidence of Defendant’s poor driving, a heavy odor of alcohol coming from the vehicle, Defendant’s admission to having consumed alcohol, and Defendant swaying heavily during his performance on the FSTs provide sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that Defendant “was less able to the slightest degree, either mentally or physically, or both, to exercise the clear judgment and steady hand necessary to handle a vehicle with safety to the person and the public.” UJI 14- 4501(2) NMRA; see Notah-Hunter, 2005-NMCA-074, ¶ 24 (holding that evidence, including “[the d]efendant smelled of alcohol 2016See, e.g., State 13 v. Soto, 2007-NMCA-077, ¶ 34 , 142 N.M. 32 , 162 P.3d 187 (holding that there was 14 sufficient evidence to support a conviction where officers observed the defendant 15 driving, where the defendant admitted to drinking, and where the defendant had 16 bloodshot and watery eyes, smelled of alcohol, and slurred speech); State v. Notah- 17 Hunter, 2005-NMCA-074, ¶ 24 , 137 N.M. 597 , 113 P.3d 867 (holding that evidence 18 that a defendant smelled of alcohol, had slurred speech, admitted to drinking alcohol, 3 1 failed field sobriety tests, and was driving erratically was suffi | 2 | 3 |
State v. Sotogreen2 sentences2016See, e.g., State 13 v. Soto, 2007-NMCA-077, ¶ 34 , 142 N.M. 32 , 162 P.3d 187 (holding that there was 14 sufficient evidence to support a conviction where officers observed the defendant 15 driving, where the defendant admitted to drinking, and where the defendant had 16 bloodshot and watery eyes, smelled of alcohol, and slurred speech); State v. Notah- 17 Hunter, 2005-NMCA-074, ¶ 24 , 137 N.M. 597 , 113 P.3d 867 (holding that evidence 18 that a defendant smelled of alcohol, had slurred speech, admitted to drinking alcohol, 3 1 failed field sobriety tests, and was driving erratically was suffi 2016See, e.g., State 13 v. Soto, 2007-NMCA-077, ¶ 34 , 142 N.M. 32 , 162 P.3d 187 (holding that there was 14 sufficient evidence to support a conviction where officers observed the defendant 15 driving, where the defendant admitted to drinking, and where the defendant had 16 bloodshot and watery eyes, smelled of alcohol, and slurred speech); State v. Notah- 17 Hunter, 2005-NMCA-074, ¶ 24 , 137 N.M. 597 , 113 P.3d 867 (holding that evidence 18 that a defendant smelled of alcohol, had slurred speech, admitted to drinking alcohol, 3 1 failed field sobriety tests, and was driving erratically was suffi | 2 | 2 |
South Dakota v. Nevillegreen1 sentence2017Deputy Jareno had training in Advanced Road Impairment Detection and Enforcement, where he learned how to identify 1 “[E]very [s]tate . . . has long had what are termed ‘implied consent laws.’ These laws impose penalties on motorists who refuse to undergo testing when there is sufficient reason to believe they are violating the [s]tate’s drunk-driving laws.” Birchfield, 136 S. Ct. at 2166 ; see, e.g., South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553, 559-60 (1983). drugs by look, smell, and consistency, and he also received specialized training as a Drug Recognition Examiner. {7} Following completion of | 1 | 1 |
Pennsylvania v. Munizgreen2 sentences2011See Muniz, 496 U.S. at 585-86, 592 , 110 S.Ct. 2638 . {19} We further conclude that Child’s response to Officer Schake’s request that he count during the one-leg-stand test is not a statement under Section 32A-2-14(D). 2011See Muniz, 496 U.S. at 585-86, 592 , 110 S.Ct. 2638 . {19} We further conclude that Child’s response to Officer Schake’s request that he count during the one-leg-stand test is not a statement under Section 32A-2-14(D). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Roybalgreen2 sentences2009Because we remain unpersuaded, we affirm. 7 DISCUSSION 8 In this Court’s calendar notice, we proposed to conclude that testimony that 9 Defendant smelled strongly of alcohol, had bloodshot watery eyes, admitted to having 10 consumed two drinks, was very “thick-tongued,” and performed poorly on the walk- 11 and-turn test and on the one-leg-stand test was sufficient evidence, when viewed in 12 the light most favorable to the verdict, to support Defendant’s conviction pursuant to 13 Section 66-8-102(A) (impaired to slightest degree). [CN 3] We further proposed to 14 conclude that, to the extent D 2009Because we remain unpersuaded, we affirm. 7 DISCUSSION 8 In this Court’s calendar notice, we proposed to conclude that testimony that 9 Defendant smelled strongly of alcohol, had bloodshot watery eyes, admitted to having 10 consumed two drinks, was very “thick-tongued,” and performed poorly on the walk- 11 and-turn test and on the one-leg-stand test was sufficient evidence, when viewed in 12 the light most favorable to the verdict, to support Defendant’s conviction pursuant to 13 Section 66-8-102(A) (impaired to slightest degree). [CN 3] We further proposed to 14 conclude that, to the extent D | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gutierrezgreen1 sentence2009See 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 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sarracinogreen2 sentences2009Because we remain unpersuaded, we affirm. 7 DISCUSSION 8 In this Court’s calendar notice, we proposed to conclude that testimony that 9 Defendant smelled strongly of alcohol, had bloodshot watery eyes, admitted to having 10 consumed two drinks, was very “thick-tongued,” and performed poorly on the walk- 11 and-turn test and on the one-leg-stand test was sufficient evidence, when viewed in 12 the light most favorable to the verdict, to support Defendant’s conviction pursuant to 13 Section 66-8-102(A) (impaired to slightest degree). [CN 3] We further proposed to 14 conclude that, to the extent D 2009Because we remain unpersuaded, we affirm. 7 DISCUSSION 8 In this Court’s calendar notice, we proposed to conclude that testimony that 9 Defendant smelled strongly of alcohol, had bloodshot watery eyes, admitted to having 10 consumed two drinks, was very “thick-tongued,” and performed poorly on the walk- 11 and-turn test and on the one-leg-stand test was sufficient evidence, when viewed in 12 the light most favorable to the verdict, to support Defendant’s conviction pursuant to 13 Section 66-8-102(A) (impaired to slightest degree). [CN 3] We further proposed to 14 conclude that, to the extent D | 1 | 1 |
State v. Moragreen2 sentences2009See State v. Mora, 1997-NMSC-060, ¶ 27 , 124 N.M. 346 , 950 11 P.2d 789 (“The reviewing court does not weigh the evidence or substitute its judgment 12 for that of the fact finder as long as there is sufficient evidence to support the 13 verdict.”). 2009See State v. Mora, 1997-NMSC-060, ¶ 27 , 124 N.M. 346 , 950 11 P.2d 789 (“The reviewing court does not weigh the evidence or substitute its judgment 12 for that of the fact finder as long as there is sufficient evidence to support the 13 verdict.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Mexico. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Neal
green
2 sentences2024When 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 | 2 | 2019–2024 |
State v. Sanchez
green
2 sentences2019Evidence of Defendant’s poor driving, a heavy odor of alcohol coming from the vehicle, Defendant’s admission to having consumed alcohol, and Defendant swaying heavily during his performance on the FSTs provide sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that Defendant “was less able to the slightest degree, either mentally or physically, or both, to exercise the clear judgment and steady hand necessary to handle a vehicle with safety to the person and the public.” UJI 14- 4501(2) NMRA; see Notah-Hunter, 2005-NMCA-074, ¶ 24 (holding that evidence, including “[the d]efendant smelled of alcohol 2019Evidence of Defendant’s poor driving, a heavy odor of alcohol coming from the vehicle, Defendant’s admission to having consumed alcohol, and Defendant swaying heavily during his performance on the FSTs provide sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that Defendant “was less able to the slightest degree, either mentally or physically, or both, to exercise the clear judgment and steady hand necessary to handle a vehicle with safety to the person and the public.” UJI 14- 4501(2) NMRA; see Notah-Hunter, 2005-NMCA-074, ¶ 24 (holding that evidence, including “[the d]efendant smelled of alcohol | 2 | 2009–2019 |
State v. Nevarez
green
1 sentence2024When 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 | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Gutierrez
green
2 sentences2019Evidence of Defendant’s poor driving, a heavy odor of alcohol coming from the vehicle, Defendant’s admission to having consumed alcohol, and Defendant swaying heavily during his performance on the FSTs provide sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that Defendant “was less able to the slightest degree, either mentally or physically, or both, to exercise the clear judgment and steady hand necessary to handle a vehicle with safety to the person and the public.” UJI 14- 4501(2) NMRA; see Notah-Hunter, 2005-NMCA-074, ¶ 24 (holding that evidence, including “[the d]efendant smelled of alcohol 2019Evidence of Defendant’s poor driving, a heavy odor of alcohol coming from the vehicle, Defendant’s admission to having consumed alcohol, and Defendant swaying heavily during his performance on the FSTs provide sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that Defendant “was less able to the slightest degree, either mentally or physically, or both, to exercise the clear judgment and steady hand necessary to handle a vehicle with safety to the person and the public.” UJI 14- 4501(2) NMRA; see Notah-Hunter, 2005-NMCA-074, ¶ 24 (holding that evidence, including “[the d]efendant smelled of alcohol | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Birchfield v. N. Dakota. William Robert Bernard
green
1 sentence2017Deputy Jareno had training in Advanced Road Impairment Detection and Enforcement, where he learned how to identify 1 “[E]very [s]tate . . . has long had what are termed ‘implied consent laws.’ These laws impose penalties on motorists who refuse to undergo testing when there is sufficient reason to believe they are violating the [s]tate’s drunk-driving laws.” Birchfield, 136 S. Ct. at 2166 ; see, e.g., South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553, 559-60 (1983). drugs by look, smell, and consistency, and he also received specialized training as a Drug Recognition Examiner. {7} Following completion of | 1 | 2017–2017 |
City of Rio Rancho v. Mazzei
green
2 sentences2011As previously described, Child performed three field sobriety tests: the HGN, the walk-and-turn test, and the one-leg-stand test. {16} Under the Fifth Amendment, “the privilege against self-incrimination only protects the accused from being compelled to provide the state with evidence of a testimonial or communicative nature and does not protect a suspect from being compelled by the state to produce real or physical evidence.” City of Rio Rancho v. Mazzei, 2010-NMCA-054, ¶26 , 148 N.M. 553 , 239 P.3d 149 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), cert, denied, 2010-NMCERT-005 , 148 N.M. 2011As previously described, Child performed three field sobriety tests: the HGN, the walk-and-turn test, and the one-leg-stand test. {16} Under the Fifth Amendment, “the privilege against self-incrimination only protects the accused from being compelled to provide the state with evidence of a testimonial or communicative nature and does not protect a suspect from being compelled by the state to produce real or physical evidence.” City of Rio Rancho v. Mazzei, 2010-NMCA-054, ¶26 , 148 N.M. 553 , 239 P.3d 149 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), cert, denied, 2010-NMCERT-005 , 148 N.M. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. MANUEL P.
neutral
1 sentence2011As previously described, Child performed three field sobriety tests: the HGN, the walk-and-turn test, and the one-leg-stand test. {16} Under the Fifth Amendment, “the privilege against self-incrimination only protects the accused from being compelled to provide the state with evidence of a testimonial or communicative nature and does not protect a suspect from being compelled by the state to produce real or physical evidence.” City of Rio Rancho v. Mazzei, 2010-NMCA-054, ¶26 , 148 N.M. 553 , 239 P.3d 149 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), cert, denied, 2010-NMCERT-005 , 148 N.M. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Wilson v. State
neutral
1 sentence2011As previously described, Child performed three field sobriety tests: the HGN, the walk-and-turn test, and the one-leg-stand test. {16} Under the Fifth Amendment, “the privilege against self-incrimination only protects the accused from being compelled to provide the state with evidence of a testimonial or communicative nature and does not protect a suspect from being compelled by the state to produce real or physical evidence.” City of Rio Rancho v. Mazzei, 2010-NMCA-054, ¶26 , 148 N.M. 553 , 239 P.3d 149 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), cert, denied, 2010-NMCERT-005 , 148 N.M. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Cunningham
green
2 sentences2009Because we remain unpersuaded, we affirm. 7 DISCUSSION 8 In this Court’s calendar notice, we proposed to conclude that testimony that 9 Defendant smelled strongly of alcohol, had bloodshot watery eyes, admitted to having 10 consumed two drinks, was very “thick-tongued,” and performed poorly on the walk- 11 and-turn test and on the one-leg-stand test was sufficient evidence, when viewed in 12 the light most favorable to the verdict, to support Defendant’s conviction pursuant to 13 Section 66-8-102(A) (impaired to slightest degree). [CN 3] We further proposed to 14 conclude that, to the extent D 2009Because we remain unpersuaded, we affirm. 7 DISCUSSION 8 In this Court’s calendar notice, we proposed to conclude that testimony that 9 Defendant smelled strongly of alcohol, had bloodshot watery eyes, admitted to having 10 consumed two drinks, was very “thick-tongued,” and performed poorly on the walk- 11 and-turn test and on the one-leg-stand test was sufficient evidence, when viewed in 12 the light most favorable to the verdict, to support Defendant’s conviction pursuant to 13 Section 66-8-102(A) (impaired to slightest degree). [CN 3] We further proposed to 14 conclude that, to the extent D | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Hernandez
green
2 sentences2009Again, we presume that the judge in a bench trial is able to properly weigh the evidence and that erroneous admission of evidence is harmless “unless it appears that the judge must have relied upon the improper evidence in rendering a decision.” Hernandez, 1999-NMCA-105, ¶ 22 , 127 N.M. 769 , 987 P.2d 1156 . 2009Again, we presume that the judge in a bench trial is able to properly weigh the evidence and that erroneous admission of evidence is harmless “unless it appears that the judge must have relied upon the improper evidence in rendering a decision.” Hernandez, 1999-NMCA-105, ¶ 22 , 127 N.M. 769 , 987 P.2d 1156 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.