This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication 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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 fr om the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3 v. No. 33,652 4 DORA SCHULTZ, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 7 Jacqueline D. Flores, District Judge 8 Gary K. King, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender 12 Santa Fe, NM 13 Josephine H. Ford, Assistant Appellant Defender 14 Albuquerque, NM 15 for Appellant 16 MEMORANDUM OPINION 17 FRY, Judge. 18
{1} Defendant has appealed from a convicti on for DWI. We previously issued a 19 notice of proposed summary disposition in which we proposed to uphold the 202 conviction. Defendant has filed a memorandum in opposition. After due consideration, 1 we remain unpersuaded. We therefore affirm. 2

{2} Because the pertinent background information and applicable principles were 3 previously set out in the notice of pr oposed summary disposition, we will avoid 4 unnecessary repetition here, and instead fo cus on the content of the memorandum in 5 opposition. 6
{3} By her first and second issues Defe ndant renews her challenge to the 7 sufficiency of the evidence to support her conviction. [MIO 17-21] As we previously 8 observed, the State’s evidence that Defendant displayed numerous indicia of 9 intoxication, [MIO 17] together with th e officer’s testimony that Defendant clearly 10 and repeatedly refused to s ubmit to breath-alcohol testing after he read the implied 11 consent advisory, [MIO 20] supply ampl e support for the conviction. In her 12 memorandum in opposition Defendant focuses on conflicting evidence and 13 countervailing inferences whic h might have been drawn. [MIO 17-21] “However, as 14 a reviewing court, we do not reweigh the evidence or attempt to draw alternative 15 inferences from the evidence.” State v. Estrada , 2001-NMCA-034, ¶ 41, 130 N.M. 16 358, 24 P.3d 793; see State v. Montoya , 2005-NMCA-078, ¶ 3, 137 N.M. 713, 114 17 P.3d 393 (observing that “the evidence is not to be reviewed with a 18 divide-and-conquer mentality . . . [ and w]e do not rewei gh the evidence or substitute 193 our judgment for that of the jury”). Wetherefore remain unpersuaded by Defendant’s 1 assertion of error. 2

{4} By her third and final issu e Defendant renews her argument that the trial court 3 should have declared a mistrial after the jury heard testimony that Defendant’s license 4 was suspended. [MIO 21-23] Insofar as the objectionable testimony was not 5 intentionally elicited, and in sofar as Defendant does not appear to have requested a 6 mistrial, we proposed to hold that the di strict court’s curative instruction was an 7 adequate remedy. See generally State v. Newman , 1989-NMCA-086, ¶ 19, 109 N.M. 8 263, 784 P.2d 1006 (observing that “[g]enerally, a prompt admonition from the court 9 to the jury to disregard and not considerinadmissable evidence sufficiently cures any 10 prejudicial effect which might otherwise re sult,” and rejecting a suggestion that the 11 court should instead declare a mistrial su a sponte). In her memorandum in opposition 12 Defendant suggests that a mistrial might have been requested inthe course of an 13 inaudible sidebar. [MIO 21] We are notinclined to indulge the speculation. See 14 generally State v. Vasquez , 2010-NMCA-041, ¶ 25, 148 N.M. 202, 232 P.3d 438 (“It 15 is [the d]efendant’s obligation to demons trate that she preserved the issue below.”); 16 State v. Brown , 1993-NMCA-120, ¶ 3, 116 N.M. 705, 866 P.2d 1172 (“[O]n a 17 doubtful or deficient record, we presume re gularity and correctness in the proceedings 18 below.”); State v. Hoxsie , 1984-NMSC-027, ¶ 4, 101 N.M . 7, 677 P.2d 620 (observing 194 that the appellant has the burden of providi ng a record sufficient to justify reversal), 1 overruled on other grounds by Gallegos v. Citizens Ins. Agency , 1989-NMSC-055, 2 108 N.M. 722, 779 P.2d 99). Moreover, even if Defendant requested a mistrial, the 3 election to issue a curative instruction was well within the district court’s discretion. 4 See generally State v. Samora , 2013-NMSC-038, ¶ 22, 307 P.3d 328 (observing that 5 the denial of a motion for mistrial is review ed for abuse of discretion, and with respect 6 to inadvertent remarks madeby witnesses, generally anoffer to give a curative 7 instruction is sufficient to cure any prejudicial effect). In her memorandum in 8 opposition we understand Defendant to suggest that the objectionable testimony was 9 not inadvertently elicited, based on the prosecutor’s repe tition of the question, “what 10 happened next,” and the officer’s response th at he “ran the licen se plate . . . on the 11 vehicle.” [MIO 22] However, as we prev iously observed in the notice of proposed 12 summary disposition, it seems clear that th e prosecutor’s line of inquiry was simply 13 intended to elicit a descripti on of the chain of events l eading from the initiation of the 14 traffic stop to the field sobriety testing and ensuing arrest. The question itself did not 15 invite either comment upon the status of Defendant’s license or the vehicle 16 registration. Insofar as the judge had issueda curative instruction, the prosecutor had 17 reason to believe that the witness would m ove on. We therefore reject Defendant’s 18 suggestion that the prosecutor intentionally elicited the testimony in question, and we 195 conclude that the authority upon which Defendant relies, State v. Ruiz , 2003-NMCA1 069, 133 N.M. 717, 68 P.3d 957, is inapposite. We therefore remain unpersuaded that 2 the district court erred. 3

{5} Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed summary 4 disposition and above, we affirm. 5

{6} IT IS SO ORDERED. 6

7 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge 8 WE CONCUR: 9

10 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 11

12 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 13