N.M. DWI Case Tossed, Conflicting Evidence

Aug. 21--The state Supreme Court "reluctantly" agreed with the dismissal of a Santa Fe DWI case in a decision released Monday, but didn't appear too happy about the circumstances that forced the ruling.

In a January 2011 trial, state District Judge Stephen Pfeffer suppressed all evidence from a DWI investigation and dismissed a DWI charge against Julio J. Marquez.

Pfeffer took that action after determining that a video recording of the traffic stop, taken from a police car camera, contradicted the arresting officer's testimony on several points and that in contrast to what the officer said, the driver's speech wasn't slurred and he didn't sway when he got out of the car. And it was the officer who was belligerent during the traffic stop, the judge found.

Santa Fe Police officer Michael Rute was not available for cross-examination on the video because of health problems.

The city of Santa Fe appealed the dismissal, but the state Supreme Court determined that overturning the dismissal would result in unconstitu- tional "double jeopardy," in essence subjecting the driver to being tried twice on the same charge.

Pfeffer's dismissal of the charge amounted to an acquittal, the higher court ruled, but justices were critical of the fact that evidence was suppressed during the trial, without a pending motion to that effect. Consideration to suppress evidence should be worked out before a trial starts, giving the parties a chance to argue and appeal such a decision, the high court said.

It directed the Rules of Criminal Procedure for the District Courts Committee to find a way to implement its directive, which stated in part, "... to avoid having the prosecution's appeal rights inadvertently extinguished by double jeopardy protections, we therefore hold that trial courts must adjudicate any suppression issues prior to trial, absent good cause for delaying such rulings until trial."

City Attorney Geno Zamora said, "We respect the Supreme Court decision and the clarity it has brought to the process. The procedure articulated by the court will assist the prosecution when they determine it is necessary to appeal criminal issues."

The incident in question, as described in the Supreme Court opinion, came on Oct. 22, 2009, when Rute said he saw Marquez make a wide right turn from Alto Street onto Camino Alire, running a stop sign. Rute testified he had to swerve to avoid Marquez's car, which also pulled directly in front of another vehicle.

After the traffic stop, Rute testified, Marquez "started to fumble" for his papers, "had slurry speech," smelled of alcohol and had bloodshot eyes, and failed a number of elements in a field sobriety test. The driver's blood alcohol content later was tested at 0.09, just above the state's presumed 0.08 measure of impairment.

Marquez was found guilty of DWI and careless driving in municipal court and appealed to district court. The trial there began in October 2010, but was continued for a couple of different reasons, finally resuming in January 2011.

After Pfeffer reviewed the video of the traffic stop, Marquez's attorney asked for a directed verdict, on the grounds that a cross-examination of Rute was not possible and the video contradicted Rute's testimony.

"The district court concluded that the video did not show Marquez's car almost hitting Officer Rute's patrol car or any other vehicle... Marquez spoke with 'perfect enunciation'... Officer Rute was belligerent while Marquez was cooperative; that in the court's assessment Officer Rute simply took offense to Marquez having rolled through the intersection without stopping and had a 'preconceived notion' about Marquez thereafter; that Marquez did not fumble for his papers; that when Marquez exited his car, he was not swaying; and that Marquez's admission to consuming a single glass of wine did not provide Officer Rute with reasonable suspicion to expand the traffic stop into a DWI investigation," stated the case background in the Supreme Court opinion.

Pfeffer therefore threw out evidence relating to the DWI charge and dismissed it, while upholding the charge on careless driving.

"This case illustrates the need to clarify that our rules require suppression motions to be filed prior to trial, absent good cause, as similarly required by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the rules of some other states," said the state Supreme Court opinion.

Copyright 2012 - Albuquerque Journal, N.M.