State v. Rudolph ( 2009 )

1 This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please
2 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.
3 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated
4 errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does
5 not include the filing date.
6 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
7 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
8 Plaintiff-Appellee,
9 v. NO. 28,299
10 JERRY RUDOLPH,
11 Defendant-Appellant.
12 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN MIGUEL COUNTY
13 Eugenio S. Mathis, District Judge
14 Gary K. King, Attorney General
15 Santa Fe, NM
16 Jacqueline R. Medina, Assistant Attorney General
17 Albuquerque, NM
18 for Appellee
19 Hugh W. Dangler, Chief Public Defender
20 Will O’Connell, Assistant Appellate Defender
21 Santa Fe, NM
22 for Appellant
23 MEMORANDUM OPINION
1 CASTILLO, Judge.
2 Defendant appeals his conviction for per se driving while under the influence
3 (DWI), contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 66-8-102(C)(1) (2005) (amended 2008).
4 Defendant contends that because the State did not prove that his blood alcohol
5 concentration (BAC) exceeded .08 at the time of driving, the jury’s guilty verdict is
6 not supported by sufficient evidence. We agree with Defendant and accordingly
7 vacate his conviction.
8 I. BACKGROUND
9 The following facts were presented at trial. At 12:17 a.m. on February 15,
10 2007, an officer received a tip that involved a possible drunk driver in a white pickup
11 truck. The officer observed Defendant driving a vehicle that matched the description
12 and followed Defendant to a residence. Defendant did not use a turn signal before
13 turning into the carport of the residence. The officer pulled up directly behind
14 Defendant’s vehicle and activated his emergency lights.
15 The officer stopped Defendant before he entered the house and noticed that
16 Defendant slurred his words and smelled of alcohol. In addition, Defendant admitted
17 to drinking that night, but he refused to take the field sobriety tests. At 12:48 a.m., the
18 officer arrested Defendant for DWI. The officer then obtained a warrant for a blood
19 sample and drove Defendant to the hospital. Defendant’s blood was drawn at 2:55
2
1 a.m., and the resulting chemical analysis showed .11 BAC.
2 At trial, the State relied solely on Defendant’s .11 BAC result to establish that
3 his BAC was greater than .08 at the time of driving. The jury found Defendant guilty
4 of per se DWI. Defendant appeals, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to
5 support his conviction.
6 II. DISCUSSION
7 A. Standard of Review
8 In reviewing a judgment for sufficiency of evidence, we examine the record to
9 determine “whether substantial evidence of either a direct or circumstantial nature
10 exists to support a verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to every
11 element essential to a conviction.” State v. Sutphin, 107 N.M. 126, 130-31, 753 P.2d
12 1314, 1318-19 (1988). Furthermore, this Court will “resolve all disputed facts in
13 favor of the [s]tate, indulge all reasonable inferences in support of the verdict, and
14 disregard all evidence and inferences to the contrary.” State v. Notah-Hunter,
15 2005-NMCA-074, ¶ 13, 137 N.M. 597, 113 P.3d 867 (internal quotation marks and
16 citation omitted). Our role is not to weigh the evidence, nor do we “substitute [our]
17 judgment for that of the fact finder so long as there is sufficient evidence to support
18 the verdict.” Sutphin, 107 NM. at 131, 753 P.2d at 1319.
19 B. Sufficiency of the Evidence
3
1 We observe that since Defendant’s arrest in 2007, the Legislature has amended
2 the per se DWI statute to include language prohibiting the operation of a vehicle if the
3 person’s BAC is .08 or greater within three hours of driving. See NMSA 1978, § 66-
4 8-102(C)(1) (2008). The version of Section 66-8-102(C)(1) that was in effect at the
5 time of Defendant’s arrest does not include the three-hour window. We analyze
6 Defendant’s argument, however, under the statute that was in effect at the time of the
7 offense. See State v. Perea, 2001-NMSC-026, ¶¶ 2-3, 130 N.M. 732, 31 P.3d 10068 (applying the version of the statute in effect on the date of the offense).
9 In order for a jury to convict a defendant of per se DWI, the state must prove
10 beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant’s BAC was at or more than .08 at the time
11 of driving. See § 66-8-102(C)(1); State v. Christmas, 2002-NMCA-020, ¶ 20, 131
12 N.M. 591, 40 P.3d 1035 (“The per se offense under Subsection C relates to the time
13 of driving.”). Thus, under the applicable version of Section 66-8-102(C)(1), the State
14 must present evidence to prove a nexus between the BAC test resulting in .08 or
15 greater and the time of driving. State v. Baldwin, 2001-NMCA-063, ¶ 8, 130 N.M.
16 705, 30 P.3d 394.
17 Defendant, relying primarily on State v. Day (Day II), 2008-NMSC-007, 143
18 N.M, 359, 176 P.3d 1091, which reversed State v. Day (Day I), 2006-NMCA-124, 140
19 N.M. 544, 144 P.3d 103, argues that because the BAC test was conducted two and
4
1 one-half hours after his arrest, retrograde extrapolation evidence was necessary to
2 prove his BAC at the time of driving. The State acknowledges that no retrograde
3 extrapolation testimony was presented in this case, but argues that Day II is factually
4 distinguishable. Further, the State points to several pre-Day cases, specifically State
5 v. Collins, 2005-NMCA-044, 137 N.M. 353, 110 P.3d 1090, superceded on other
6 grounds by regulation as stated in State v. Willie, 2008-NMCA-030, ¶ 13, 143 N.M.
7 615, 179 P.3d 1223; Baldwin, 2001-NMCA-063; and State v. Cavanaugh, 116 N.M.
8 826, 867 P.2d 1208 (Ct. App. 1993), to support its position that Defendant’s BAC of
9 .11 was excessive enough to eclipse the need for scientific retrograde evidence; thus,
10 the evidence presented at trial supported Defendant’s conviction beyond a reasonable
11 doubt.
12 We begin with a discussion of the Day cases. Then we address the State’s
13 reliance on several pre-Day cases and its assertion that Defendant’s case is factually
14 distinguishable from Day II.
15 1. Day Cases
16 In Day I, this Court reversed the defendant’s conviction for per se DWI because
17 the state failed to present evidence linking a BAC test to the time of driving. 2006-
18 NMCA-124, ¶ 25. In that case, the officer conducted the BAC test one hour and six
19 minutes after the defendant was stopped. Id. This Court reasoned that “[t]he
5
1 relation-back endeavor is not something the jurors could rationally do without
2 evidence of the scientific process related to the facts of the case that were necessary
3 for an absorption-elimination analysis.” Id. Further, the Court concluded that it was
4 the state’s burden to provide such scientific evidence in order to prove guilt beyond
5 a reasonable doubt. Id. Elaborating, the Court stated that scientific evidence is
6 required whenever the state wishes to connect a latter-performed BAC test with an
7 earlier BAC. Id. Because the state did not present such scientific evidence, the
8 defendant’s conviction could not stand. Id.9 In Day II, our Supreme Court considered the evidence presented at trial and
10 concluded that the defendant’s conviction was supported by substantial evidence.
11 2008-NMSC-007, ¶¶ 23, 26. Although the state did not provide an expert to testify
12 regarding retrograde extrapolation, the defendant had offered such testimony in
13 presenting his defense. Id. ¶ 26. As a result, the jury received testimony about the
14 way that the body processes alcohol and therefore had a basis on which to find that the
15 defendant’s BAC test related back to the time of driving. Id. ¶¶ 24, 25. Additionally,
16 the Day II Court limited the use of behavioral evidence—evidence of the defendant’s
17 appearance and actions—to the calculation of a scientific retrograde analysis. Id. ¶
18 32. According to Day II, behavioral evidence is not “sufficient to show the required
19 nexus between a BAC test and an earlier BAC.” Id. With Day I and Day II as
6
1 background, we turn to the State’s arguments.
2 2. Reliance on Collins, Baldwin, and Cavanaugh
3 The State argues that Defendant’s BAC was excessive enough to eliminate the
4 need for retrograde extrapolation evidence. The State first relies on State v. Collins
5 because it was cited in Day I as support for the proposition that retrograde
6 extrapolation evidence is not required when the BAC is ascertained immediately after
7 driving or when the result of a later-taken BAC is extremely high. See Day I, 2006-
8 NMCA-124, ¶ 23. Although we ultimately conclude that Day II controls in the
9 present case, we address the State’s argument nevertheless.
10 In Collins, soon after arrest, the defendant was found to have a BAC of between
11 .17 and .18. 2005-NMCA-044, ¶ 3. He was charged with aggravated DWI, requiring
12 a BAC of .16 or above, as well as the lesser included charge of DWI, requiring a BAC
13 of only .08 or above. Id. ¶ 4. This Court concluded that the jury’s determination that
14 the BAC results did not support a conviction of aggravated DWI did not prevent the
15 jury from also finding that the BAC results were “probably indicative of a BAC
16 somewhere between .08 and .15.” Id. ¶ 51. Thus, in Collins the defendant’s BAC
17 result was so far above the .08 threshold that it was reasonable for the jury to rely on
18 the result. We observe that Collins did not consider a time delay between driving and
7
1 the administration of the test.
2 We are not persuaded that Collins is a sufficient basis for us to alleviate the
3 State’s burden of proof in the present case. Here, the test was administered two and
4 a half hours after driving, and the .11 result was not nearly so high as the .17 to .18
5 range from Collins. In addition, the delay between driving and testing was significant.
6 This Court has previously explained that per se DWI convictions are reversed based
7 on “a lack of relation-back evidence” when “the lapse of time between the time of
8 driving and the time of BAC testing is at least two hours.” State v. Martinez, 2002-
9 NMCA-043, ¶ 12, 132 N.M. 101, 45 P.3d 41. Given the length of time involved, as
10 well as the significantly lower BAC result than was present in Collins, we are not
11 persuaded that Collins and the dictum from Day I apply to the present case.
12 The State also relies on Baldwin and Cavanaugh, cases in which this Court held
13 that a jury can infer a defendant’s guilt as to DWI based on behavioral evidence
14 together with a sufficiently high BAC. See Baldwin, 2001-NMCA-063, ¶¶ 23-24
15 (reversing conviction on per se DWI because evidence of unremarkable
16 contemporaneous behavior together with a .08 BAC test taken over two hours after
17 arrest was insufficient ); Cavanaugh, 116 N.M. at 829-30, 867 P.2d at 1211-12
18 (affirming conviction of per se DWI when the defendant tested at a BAC of
19 approximately .13 one hour and forty minutes after arrest and officers testified to the
8
1 defendant’s intoxicated behavior immediately before, during, and after driving the
2 vehicle). In the present case, the State argues that police testimony regarding
3 Defendant’s appearance at the time of arrest at 12:48 a.m.—along with Defendant’s
4 .11 BAC at 2:55 a.m.—is enough to permit the jury to relate Defendant’s BAC back
5 to the time of driving. Day II, however, instructs that behavioral evidence is no longer
6 relevant to establish the nexus between a BAC result and the time of driving. 2008-
7 NMSC-007, ¶ 32. According to Day II, behavioral evidence only has relevance in the
8 context of retrograde extrapolation evidence. See id. No scientific evidence was
9 offered in the present case, and the police testimony as to Defendant’s behavior at the
10 time of driving is therefore irrelevant to establish the requisite nexus between the time
11 of the blood test and the time of driving. Thus, neither Cavanaugh nor Baldwin
12 support the State’s argument.
13 3. Comparison of Facts in the Day Cases to the Present Case
14 The State asserts that because the Day cases dealt with a BAC of .08, instead
15 of .11 as in the instant case, the holdings are limited to cases where a defendant’s BAC
16 is “marginal.” We disagree. The Day opinions do not address a maximum BAC, and
17 we find no language in either case with the limitation suggested by the State. See
18 State v. Lewis, 2008-NMCA-070, ¶ 21, 144 N.M. 156, 184 P.3d 1050 (“[C]ases are
19 not authority for propositions not considered.” (alteration in original) (internal
9
1 quotation marks and citation omitted)). To the contrary, Day II specifically states that
2 if an earlier BAC is to be inferred from a later BAC test result, the fact finder must
3 have knowledge of the scientific process of how the alcohol absorption/metabolism
4 curve works over time. 2008-NMSC-007, ¶ 31. We conclude that Day II is
5 controlling. Because the jury here was asked to deduce a BAC based on a test result
6 conducted two and one-half hours later, we conclude that Day II requires that
7 scientific evidence be presented to make the connection. Without this evidence, the
8 State failed to meet its burden to prove Defendant guilty of per se DWI beyond a
9 reasonable doubt.
10 III. CONCLUSION
11 Based on the above analysis, we hold that Defendant’s conviction was not
12 supported by substantial evidence, and we vacate Defendant’s conviction for per se
13 DWI.
14 IT IS SO ORDERED.
15 ________________________________
16 CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Judge
17 WE CONCUR:
18 ________________________________
19 ROBERT E. ROBLES, Judge
10
1 ________________________________
2 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge
11