State v. Baca
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. 1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 2 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 3 Plaintiff-Appellee, 4 v. NO. 33,286 5 BEVERLY BACA, 6 Defendant-Appellant. 7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 8 Christina P. Argyres, District Judge 9 Gary K. King, Attorney General 10 Albuquerque, NM 11 for Appellee 12 Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender 13 Sergio J. Viscoli, Assistant Appellate Defender 14 Albuquerque, NM 15 for Appellant 16 MEMORANDUM OPINION 17 KENNEDY, Chief Judge. 1 {1} Beverly Baca (Defendant) appeals from the district court s affirmance of her 2 convictions for careless driving and DWI (first offense) based on impairment to the 3 slightest degree due to the ingestion of drugs. Our notice proposed to affirm, and 4 Defendant filed a timely memorandum in opposition. We remain unpersuaded by 5 Defendant s arguments and therefore affirm. 6 {2} Defendant continues to argue that the evidence was insufficient to support her 7 DWI conviction (first offense). [DS 30; MIO 23] See State v. Sutphin, 1988-NMSC8 031, ¶ 21, 107 N.M. 126, 753 P.2d 1314 (setting forth the standard of review). 9 Defendant s conviction for DWI requires findings that she was driving a motor 10 vehicle and, at the time, was under the influence of drugs to such a degree that she was 11 incapable of safely driving a vehicle. See NMSA 1978, § 66-8-102(B) (2010). 12 {3} Regarding evidence that Defendant was under the influence of drugs, she 13 admitted to officers that she was taking prescription medication and illegal drugs and 14 was self-medicating by taking two Valium instead of her regular dose of one. [RP 15 106, 100, 101-02] Defendant also admitted that her drugs were causing her balance 16 issues and caused her to walk into walls at home. [RP 106, 107] An SLD analyst 17 testified that diazepam (Valium), nordiazepam (a metabolite of diazepam), and 18 ecogonine methyl ester (a metabolite of cocaine) were found in Defendant s blood 19 sample. [RP 106] We consider also Officer MacFarlane s testimony that he thought 2 1 Defendant was under the influence of drugs based on his observations during the 2 traffic accident investigation and the field sobriety tests. [RP 106] In addition, 3 Sergeant White testified that Defendant was under the influence of a central nervous 4 stimulant and a narcotic analgesic based on the results of the clinical evaluation during 5 the DRE, in which Defendant s blood pressure, body temperature, and pulse were 6 outside the normal range. [RP 106, 102-03; DS 18-19] While Defendant was 7 cooperative during the DRE, she had a hard time sitting still, her legs were bouncing, 8 her speech was slurred, and her eyes were very watery. [RP 102; DS 20] 9 {4} Regarding evidence that Defendant was incapable of safely driving at the time 10 of the accident, Officer McFarlane testified that Defendant rear-ended a pickup truck, 11 and Defendant admitted that she was not paying attention while driving. [RP 106, 99] 12 Officer McFarlane further testified that Defendant had delayed responses, slurred 13 speech, and a difficult time following instructions during the field sobriety tests. [RP 14 106, 99-100; DS 1-2] Officer McFarlane testified that, during the field sobriety tests, 15 Defendant had to lean on her vehicle and performed the field sobriety tests badly, 16 exhibiting problems with coordination and balance. [RP 106, 100; DS 2-4] Similarly, 17 Sergeant White testified that, during her DRE evaluation, Defendant performed the 18 psycho-physical tests badly, again demonstrating problems with coordination, 19 balance, and her ability to follow instructions. [RP 106, 101; DS 16-17] Based on the 20 clinical evaluations, his observations, and Defendant s admissions, Sergeant White 3 1 testified that Defendant was not able to operate a motor vehicle safely due to her 2 consumption of drugs. [RP 102-03; DS 20-21] 3 {5} Based on the foregoing, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the 4 district court s finding that Defendant was under the influence of drugs to such a 5 degree that she was incapable of safely driving a vehicle. See State v. Sparks, 19856 NMCA-004, ¶ 6, 102 N.M. 317, 694 P.2d 1382 (defining substantial evidence as that 7 evidence which a reasonable person would consider adequate to support a defendant s 8 conviction). In so concluding, we acknowledge that Sergeant White s conclusion that 9 Defendant was under the influence of a central nervous system stimulant and a 10 narcotic analgesic was contradicted by the testimony about the blood test results from 11 the SLD analyst and Dr. Reyes. [RP 107; DS 24-26; MIO 25-26] As pointed out by 12 the district court, however, the test results clearly demonstrated Valium was present 13 in Defendant s system and Dr. Reyes acknowledged that every person reacts to the 14 drug differently and was unable to say that the amount consumed by Defendant could 15 not impair her ability to drive. [RP 107] As noted above, Defendant admitted to 16 taking an extra dose of Valium and admitted that her medication was causing her to 17 have balance problems. [RP 107] We acknowledge that there were conflicts in the 18 evidence regarding whether Defendant was under the influence of drugs namely, 19 whether the lower range of the therapeutic level of Valium ingested by Defendant 20 would cause her to have impaired driving [MIO 28] and whether other medical 4 1 conditions, such as Graves disease and bipolar illness, caused her slurred speech and 2 balance problems. [DS 21; MIO 25, 28] We acknowledge also Defendant s version 3 of the incident that the accident was caused by her reaching for something on her 4 vehicle s floorboard, rather than by her incapacitation caused by drugs. [MIO 25] In 5 our view, however, these were matters for the fact-finder to assess. See generally 6 State v. Salas, 1999-NMCA-099, ¶ 13, 127 N.M. 686, 986 P.2d 482 (recognizing that 7 it is for the fact-finder to resolve any conflict in the testimony of the witnesses and to 8 determine where the weight and credibility lay). 9 {6} Based on the reasoning set forth in our notice and above, we affirm Defendant s 10 convictions for careless driving and DWI (first offense). 11 {7} IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 ____________________________________ RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge 14 WE CONCUR: 15 ___________________________ 16 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 17 ___________________________ 18 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 5
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
