State v. Ruiz

• Docket Number: A-1-CA-40201
• Decision Date: 30 October 2023
• Parties: STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANTHONY RUIZ, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeals of New Mexico

1

STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ANTHONY RUIZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. A-1-CA-40201

Court of Appeals of New Mexico

October 30, 2023

Corrections to this opinion/decision not affecting the outcome, at the Court's discretion, can occur up to the time of publication with NM Compilation Commission. The Court will ensure that the electronic version of this opinion/decision is updated accordingly in Odyssey.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF RIO ARRIBA COUNTY Jason Lidyard, District Court Judge

Raul Torrez, Attorney General

Santa Fe, NM

Emily Bowen, Assistant Attorney General

Albuquerque, NM

for Appellee

Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender

Melanie C. McNett, Assistant Appellate Defender

Santa Fe, NM

for Appellant

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JENNIFER L. ATTREP, CHIEF JUDGE

{¶1} Defendant Anthony Ruiz appeals his conviction and sentence for driving while intoxicated (DWI) (third offense) (impaired to the slightest degree), contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 66-8-102(A) (2016). Defendant argues that (1) the State presented insufficient evidence to establish the corpus delicti of DWI, and (2) the

2

district court erred in using a prior DWI conviction to enhance his sentence. We affirm.

DISCUSSION

I. The State's Evidence Was Sufficient to Establish the Corpus Delicti of DWI

{¶2} Defendant was arrested for DWI after his mother called police to report that he was driving drunk in his truck around the family property. Defendant admitted to the arresting officer, Officer Matthew Bustos, that he had been drinking beer while driving around the property. He also admitted to having four drinks about three hours before Officer Bustos arrived and to driving about twenty minutes prior to Officer Bustos' arrival. Defendant argues that the State impermissibly relied on these extrajudicial admissions to establish the corpus delicti of DWI. For the reasons that follow, we disagree.

{¶3} Corpus delicti "refers to the evidence needed to establish that the charged crime was actually committed." State v. Wilson, 2011-NMSC-001, ¶ 8, 149 N.M. 273, 248 P.3d 315 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), overruled on other grounds by State v. Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008, ¶ 37 n.6, 275 P.3d 110. "The corpus delicti rule provides that unless the corpus delicti of the offense charged has been otherwise established, a conviction cannot be sustained solely on the extrajudicial confessions or admissions of the accused." State v. Bregar, 2017-NMCA-028, ¶ 45, 390 P.3d 212 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

3

Under New Mexico's modern corpus delicti analysis, known as the "modified trustworthiness rule," a defendant's confession or admission may be used to establish the corpus delicti of a crime only "when the prosecution is able to demonstrate the trustworthiness of the confession and introduce some independent evidence of a criminal act." Wilson, 2011-NMSC-001, ¶ 15; see also State v. Yanni, ___-NMCA-___, ¶ 7, ___ P.3d ___ (A-1-CA-40354, Aug. 22, 2023) (same). Our review is de novo. See Bregar, 2017-NMCA-028, ¶ 46.

{¶4} On appeal, Defendant concedes the trustworthiness of his admissions and further admits he was intoxicated by the time Officer Bustos arrived. Defendant additionally acknowledges that there was evidence to support that he was the person driving the truck around the family property and that "[he] was intoxicated prior to when [his mother] called the police." That is, Defendant concedes that there is some independent, circumstantial evidence that he drove while impaired. See Wilson, 2011-NMSC-001, ¶ 15; see also State v. Cotton, 2011-NMCA-096, ¶¶ 14-15, 150 N.M. 583, 263 P.3d 925 (providing that, to sustain a conviction under the "impairment to the slightest degree" standard, there must be evidence that "the driving and impairment overlapped"). We agree.

{¶5} Defendant's mother testified that Defendant was the only person who had access to the truck and used it. Prior to calling police, Defendant's mother testified that she heard Defendant driving his truck around their property while performing

4

yard work. She explained that Defendant was picking up branches and disposing of them across a bridge on the property, and that although she did not see Defendant driving the truck, she heard it going back and forth across the bridge. Defendant's mother also testified that when she went outside to speak with Defendant, she could tell he had been drinking. Defendant lived with his mother, and she explained that she sees Defendant every day and she knows when he takes a drink. After speaking with Defendant, Defendant's mother heard the truck driving around again and she called law enforcement. When Officer Bustos arrived, approximately 45 minutes later, he observed Defendant within arms' reach of the truck, the hood of the truck was warm to the touch, and there was a half-empty beer bottle in the center console of the truck. See Yanni, ___ -NMCA- ___, ¶ 11 (summarizing cases where substantial evidence supported a conviction for past DWI and providing that "[a]lthough the arresting officer did not witness the defendant drive in any of these cases, the defendant was always in close proximity to the vehicle that they admitted to driving or other circumstances linked the defendants to driving the vehicle"). At that time, Defendant smelled of alcohol and had bloodshot, watery eyes and slurred speech. Defendant failed field sobriety tests. Breath tests administered approximately two hours after Defendant's mother called law enforcement registered blood alcohol concentrations (BAC) of .24 and .25, three times the legal limit, § 66-8-102(C)(1). See State v. Baldwin, 2001-NMCA-063, ¶ 16, 130 N.M. 705, 30 P.3d 394 (providing

5

that a jury may rely on experience to conclude that a state of intoxication arose "over a period of time and not all of a sudden," as well as in determining whether "an accused likely had the ability to drive an automobile in a prudent manner within a reasonable time before or after his behavior is observed in a state of intoxication"); State v. Marquez, 2009-NMSC-055, ¶ 24, 147 N.M. 386, 223 P.3d 931 ("[I]t is common knowledge that an individual with a BAC at or above the legal limit is highly likely to be impaired by alcohol, at least to the slightest degree."), overruled on other grounds by Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008, ¶ 37 n.6.

{¶6} Notwithstanding the foregoing evidence and Defendant's concessions on appeal, Defendant argues the State failed to establish the corpus delicti of DWI because there was evidence to support inferences that his sister, and not he, had driven the truck and that his intoxication may have occurred after his mother called police.^[1] In support, Defendant cites State v. Weisser, 2007-NMCA-015, 141 N.M. 93, 150 P.3d 1043, for the proposition that corpus delicti will be wanting where the

6

evidence is "susceptible to multiple inferences." See id. ¶ 36 (concluding that evidence was insufficient to establish the corpus delicti where it was equally consistent with an inference that no criminal act took place). Defendant's argument overlooks the fact that this Court has abrogated Weisser's multiple inferences rule in the context of corpus delicti review. See Bregar, 2017-NMCA-028, ¶ 49 (providing that "the 'susceptible of multiple inferences' rule is no longer an appropriate standard for a New Mexico appellate court" to apply in corpus delicti cases); see also State v. Owelicio, 2011-NMCA-091, ¶ 31, 150 N.M. 528...