State v. Watson

 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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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. A-1-CA-36101 5 JUSTUS WATSON, 6 Defendant-Appellant. 7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 8 Alisa A. Hadfield, District Judge 9 10 11 12 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General Santa Fe, NM John Kloss, Assistant Attorney General Albuquerque, NM 13 for Appellee 14 15 16 17 Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender Santa Fe, NM Steven J. Forsberg, Assistant Appellate Defender Albuquerque, NM 18 for Appellant 19 20 BOHNHOFF, Judge. MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 {1} Defendant Justus Watson was stopped on suspicion of driving while intoxicated 2 (DWI). When tested for breath alcohol, the readings were .08 and .07 grams of alcohol 3 per 210 liters of air. Defendant was charged and, after a bench trial before the 4 metropolitan court, convicted of per se DWI in violation of NMSA 1978, Section 665 8-102(C)(1) (2010, amended 2016), which requires proof of breath alcohol 6 concentration of .08 or more. He appealed his conviction to the district court, and that 7 court affirmed. Defendant now appeals to this Court. He does not challenge the 8 legality of the stop or the validity and admissibility of the breath alcohol testing 9 procedures and results. Instead, Defendant argues solely that as a matter of law the 10 evidence was not sufficient to convict him of per se DWI, because the two scores 11 carry equal evidentiary weight and therefore that evidence cannot establish guilt 12 beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a memorandum opinion and because the parties are 13 familiar with the facts and procedural posture of the case, we set forth only such facts 14 and law as are necessary to decide the issues raised. We affirm. 15 {2} The question for us on appeal is whether the metropolitan court’s decision is 16 supported by substantial evidence, not whether another fact-finder could have reached 17 a different conclusion. See In re Ernesto M., Jr., 1996-NMCA-039, ¶ 15, 121 N.M. 18 562, 915 P.2d 318. Our Supreme Court recently clarified our standard of review 19 where, as in the instant case, the evidence at trial would “support[] a reasonable 3 1 hypothesis of innocence[.]” State v. Garcia (Garcia 2016), 2016-NMSC-034, ¶ 24, 2 384 P.3d 1076. The Court reiterated its rejection “as no longer an appropriate 3 standard for a New Mexico appellate court the proposition that where the evidence 4 supports a reasonable hypothesis of innocence, the [s]tate, by definition, has failed to 5 prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (alteration, omissions, internal 6 quotation marks, and citation omitted). The Court observed that “it is unproductive 7 to try to formulate a standard of appellate review in terms of a hypothesis of 8 innocence, because inevitably it appears to intrude upon the role of the jury.” Id. The 9 Court held that instead, “to avoid second-guessing the jury,” id., the standard of 10 review is a “ ‘two-step process’ that requires an appellate court to draw every 11 reasonable inference in favor of the jury’s verdict and then to evaluate whether the 12 evidence, so viewed, supports the verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. Applying 13 this standard of review to the facts, the evidence that one of Defendant’s breath 14 alcohol samples tested at .08 supports the district court’s conclusion of guilt for per 15 se DWI. See State v. Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 19, 126 N.M. 438, 971 P.2d 829. 16 {3} Defendant cites an earlier Supreme Court decision, State v. Garcia (Garcia 17 2005), 2005-NMSC-017, ¶ 12, 138 N.M. 1, 116 P.3d 72, for the proposition that 18 “evidence equally consistent with two hypotheses tends to prove neither.” He then 19 argues that, “[i]n this case the two breath scores are equally consistent with 4 1 [Defendant] having a score of .08 (at the legal limit) or at .07 (below the legal limit).” 2 Defendant concludes that “the evidence of the BAC scores does not support the 3 verdict beyond a reasonable doubt because the two scores are contradictory and there 4 is no evidence with which to believe one over the other.” 5 {4} However, the Supreme Court in Garcia 2016 rejected the same logic. In that 6 case, the defendant was convicted of defrauding an elderly man by claiming to be his 7 loving partner and that she was not married to or otherwise romantically involved with 8 anyone else. 2016-NMSC-034, ¶¶ 20-22. Invoking the hypothesis of innocence rule, 9 the defendant contended that it was “at least as plausible that [the victim] either did 10 not care about or did not want to know about [the defendant’s] other romantic interests 11 given his failure to ever discuss the issue with her.” Id. ¶ 25 (emphasis added) 12 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court made clear that this argument was 13 encompassed by its rejection of the hypothesis of innocence rule earlier in its decision: 14 “This argument is . . . based on a discredited standard of appellate review[.]” Id. Thus, 15 it matters not that the .08 and .07 breath scores, without more, could have been equally 16 supportive of determinations that Defendant was or was not guilty of per se DWI. Our 17 Supreme Court has replaced the Garcia 2005 analysis with a two-step process for 18 reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal. Following that process, we will 5 1 not disturb a determination by the fact-finder to credit the .08 breath score and on that 2 basis find that Defendant is guilty of per se DWI. 3 {5} For the reasons set forth in the State’s answer brief, Defendant’s remaining 4 arguments are not persuasive. We therefore conclude that sufficient evidence supports 5 Defendant’s conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. 6 CONCLUSION 7 {6} We affirm Defendant’s conviction. 8 {7} IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 ______________________________ HENRY M. BOHNHOFF, Judge 11 WE CONCUR: 12 ___________________________________ 13 LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge 14 ___________________________________ 15 EMIL J. KIEHNE, Judge 6

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.