March 25, 2020- State of New Mexico v. Reanna Solomon, No. A-1-CA-38331

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.
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-38331
5 REANNA SOLOMON,
6 Defendant-Appellant.
7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY
8 Jacqueline D. Flores, District Judge
9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
10 Santa Fe, NM
11 for Appellee
12 Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender
13 John Charles Bennett, Assistant Appellate Defender
14 Santa Fe, NM
15 for Appellant
16 MEMORANDUM OPINION
17 VANZI, Judge.
18 {1} Defendant has appealed her conviction for DWI. We previously issued a notice
19 of proposed summary disposition in which we proposed to uphold the conviction.
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 3/25/2020 8:37 AM

2
1 Defendant has filed a memorandum in opposition. After due consideration, we remain
2 unpersuaded. We therefore affirm.
3 {2} Because the pertinent background information and applicable principles have
4 previously been set forth, we will avoid unnecessary repetition here, and instead focus
5 on the content of the memorandum in opposition.
6 {3} Defendant continues to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support her
7 conviction. [MIO 2-6] However, the State presented evidence that Defendant
8 displayed numerous indicia of intoxication, including bloodshot watery eyes, slurred
9 speech, and strong odor of alcohol, as well as poor performance on at least one field
10 sobriety test. [MIO 2-3] Defendant also admitted that she had consumed alcohol prior
11 to driving, and the first officer on the scene observed one or more empty bottles of
12 alcohol in Defendant’s purse. [MIO 2] This supplies ample support for the conviction.
13 See, e.g., State v. Soto, 2007-NMCA-077, ¶¶ 32, 34, 142 N.M. 32, 162 P.3d 187
14 (holding that there was sufficient evidence of driving under the influence, pursuant
15 to the impaired-to-the-slightest-degree standard when the defendant had bloodshot
16 watery eyes, slurred speech, and a very strong odor of alcohol, the defendant admitted
17 drinking, the officers observed several empty cans of beer where the defendant had

3
1 been, and the officers testified that the defendant was intoxicated), abrogated on
2 other grounds by State v. Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008, 275 P.3d 110.
3 {4} In her memorandum in opposition Defendant focuses on the limited probative
4 value of some of the evidence, particularly relative to her appearance and behavior,
5 as well as countervailing inferences which might have been drawn. [MIO 2-4]
6 “However, as a reviewing court, we do not reweigh the evidence or attempt to draw
7 alternative inferences from the evidence.” State v. Estrada, 2001-NMCA-034, ¶ 41,
8 130 N.M. 358, 24 P.3d 793; see State v. Montoya, 2005-NMCA-078, ¶ 3, 137 N.M.
9 713, 114 P.3d 393 (observing that “the evidence is not to be reviewed with a
10 divide-and-conquer mentality [and w]e do not reweigh the evidence or substitute our
11 judgment for that of the jury” (citation omitted)).
12 {5} Finally, Defendant contends that in light of the State’s failure to prove that she
13 caused the collision, the evidence should be deemed insufficient to establish that she
14 was impaired to the slightest degree. [MIO 2-3, 4-5] However, proof that Defendant
15 was at fault was not requisite to the conviction for DWI. See State v. Vargas,
16 2017-NMCA-023, ¶¶ 8-12, 389 P.3d 1080 (rejecting an argument that the state’s
17 failure to prove impaired driving rendered the evidence insufficient to support a
18 conviction for DWI). The State was merely required to establish that Defendant

4
1 “operated a motor vehicle” and that at the time she was “under the influence of
2 intoxicating liquor, that is, as a result of drinking liquor the defendant was less able
3 to the slightest degree, either mentally or physically, or both, to exercise the clear
4 judgment and steady hand necessary to handle a vehicle with safety to the person and
5 the public.” UJI 14-4501 NMRA. As previously mentioned, the circumstantial
6 evidence was sufficient to prove this. See, e.g., Soto, 2007-NMCA-077, ¶¶ 32, 34
7 (upholding the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction for driving while
8 impaired to the slightest degree based on similar evidence, despite the fact that the
9 officer did not observe impaired driving).
10 {6} Accordingly, for the reasons stated, we affirm.
11 {7} IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
13 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge
14 WE CONCUR:
15 ______________________________
16 J. MILES HANISEE, Chief Judge
17
18 ZACHARY H. IVES, Judge