1 IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 O pin ionN um

be r: 3 Fi lin g D at e: June 11, 201 5 4 N O. 32, 820 5 STA TE OF NE W MEX ICO, 6 Plaintiff-Appellee, 7 v
. 8 JUAN CORDOVA, 9 D ef

en dant- Appe llant. 10 APPEAL FROM THE DI STRI CT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY 11 M ar y M ar lowe- So m m er , D ist ri ctJu dg e 12 He ctor H . B alderas, Attorney Ge neral 13 Jacqueline R. M edina, A ssistant Attorney Ge neral 14 San ta Fe, NM 15 for Appellee 16 Jorge A. Alvar ado, Chief Public De fender 17 B. Douglas W ood, III , A ssistant Appellate D efender 18 Santa Fe , N M 19 fo r Appe llant1 OPIN ION

2 FR Y, Judge. 3 { 1} De fendant appeals his conv ictions for causing g reat bodily injury by vehicle, 4 ag gr av at ed dr ivi ng whil e unde r the inf lue nc e (D W I) , kno w ing ly le av ing the sc en e of 5 ana cc ide nt, a nd h om ic ide by ve hic le
. D ef

en dant r ai se s a num

be r of a rg um en ts. 6 H ow ev er , the pe rt ine nt i ssu e fo r thi s a ppe al is whe the r the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in 7 de te rm ini ng tha t the em er ge nc y a ssi stanc e doc tr ine j ust if ie d th e w ar

rantl es s e ntr

y by 8 two Rio Arrib a Co un ty sh eri ff’s d ep ut ie s i nt o Def en da nt ’s res id en ce. Be cau se we 9 co nc lud e tha t the de put ie s di d not have re as ona ble gr ound s to beli ev e tha t a ge nui ne 10 em ergency

existed requiring th eir im m ediate aid, we hold th at the district court err ed 11 in d en y ing D ef

en dant’ s m oti on t o su

ppr es s. 12 BACKGRO UND 13 { 2} T he f

ac ts unde rl y ing D ef

en dant’ s c onvi ct ion s are a s f oll ow s. A gr oup of 14 m ot or c y c l i st s r e tur

ni ng f r om a m ot or c y c l e r a l l y i n R e d R i ve r , N e w M e xi c o, w ere 15 traveling on State Road 76 near Chim ay o, New Mexico. Defe ndant, driving a truck 16 in the oppo site direction, crossed the center lane and struck the m otorcy clists. Sever al 17 of the m otorcy clists were injure d in the collisio n, and one, the lead m otorcy clist, w as 18 ki ll ed . Fol lo win g t he co ll is io n, Defen da nt dr ov e a s ho rt d is ta nc e b efo re h e an d t wo 19 passengers abandon ed the vehicle.2

1 { 3} De putyPaula A rchuleta w as one of the first deputies to respond to the scene. 2 A w itn es s in fo rm ed

D ep uty A rc hul etathat the abandon ed tr uc k w as f ar the r up the 3 ro ad a nd tha t thr ee ind ivi dua ls w er e se enr unni ng f ro m the sc en e in the vic ini ty

of the 4 Rio Chiquit o. W hile a fellowdeputy stay ed with the victim s, D eputy Ar chuleta began 5 inv es tig at ing the ab an done d tr uc k. S he not ed

da m ag e on the f

ro nt p as se nge r sid e an d 6 a cr ac ke d w ind shi el d onthe dr ive r sid e. A ft er r unni ng the li ce nse pla te , D ep uty 7 A rc hul et a w as inf

orm ed that the tr

uc k be lon ge d to D ef

en dant. Dep uty

A rc hul et a 8 ca lle d D ep uty

I sa ac Mart ine z, w ho w as of f- duty but liv ed

ne ar by , a nd a ske d f

or his 9 assistance in searching for the susp ects. The deputies first began sear ching th e ar ea 10 surround ing t h e Ri o Ch iquit o. A fter being told by a volunteer firef

ighter where 11 De fendant lived, the deputies proceeded to Def endant’ s residence. 12 { 4} T he de put ie s’ te sti m ony at the pr el im inary he ar ing vari ed sli ght ly on the e ve nts 13 that fo l l o we d once they rea ched De fendant’ s residence. De putyAr chuleta testified 14 that th e do or

to the hou se w as a

j ar a nd tha t sh e he ar d so m e ty pe of “ ba ck gr ound 15 noi se ” in the hom e. S he te sti fi ed that sh e knoc ke d and announc ed the 16 de put ie s’ pr es en ce a nd, upo n ge tti ng n o r es pons e, e nte re d th e hom e. D ep uty 17 Mar ti ne z, ho wev er, test ifi ed th at th ey di d n ot kn oc k o r he ar “ ba ck gr ou nd no is es .” He 18 te sti fi ed

that the de put ie s announc ed the ir pr es en ce a nd wa lke d into the hom e. Bo th 19 de put ie s te sti fi ed

that the y e nte re d th e hom e w ithgun s dr awn.3

1 { 5} The deputies located D efendant in his bedroo m ly ing on the bed. The deputies 2 asked if he wa s Juan C ordova. When De fendant responded that he wa s, the deputies 3 ordered him

to pu t his hand s up. T hey then toldDe fendant he wa s the susp ected 4 driver, escorted D efendant out of the hou se, and tol d him that he wa s being detain ed 5 fo r qu es tio nin g. T he de put ie s te sti fi ed that D ef en dant h ad

ac ut o n hi s f

or eh ea d, 6 althoug h a p hy sician who t reate d De fendant later testified that he did not recall such 7 an injury . W

hen deputi es asked if he w as okay , D efendant responded that his truck 8 had been stolen an d t h at he w as not inv olved in the accident. Once the deputies 9 rem oved Defe ndant from the hom e, he w as placed in handcuffs and searched. A set 1 0 o f c ark eys w a s fo u n di n h i s fr o n tp o ck et . De fe n d an twa s t ak en t o t h e s h er i ff ’s 11 de pa rtment and ch arg ed in rel at io n to th e de at h and in juri es of th e m ot or cy cl is ts . A 12 ch em ic al tes t wo ul d l at er s ho w Defen da nt ’s bl oo d a lc oh ol co nt en t t o b e 0 .14
. 13 { 6} Be fo re tr ia l, D ef en dant f iled a m oti on t o su

ppr es s, a rg uin g th at

the de put ie s’ 14 entry into his hom e wa s in vio lation of the Fourth Am endm ent to the United States 15 Constitu tion and Ar

ticle II, Sec tion 10 of the Ne w Me xico Const itutio n. T he district 16 court denied the m otion to supp ress and concluded that, u n d er the em ergency 17 as sis tanc e doc tr ine , the de put ie s’ w ar rantl es s e ntr

y int o th e hom e w as j ust if

ie d by the 18 de pu ti es ’ co nc ern forDefen da nt ’s saf et y . Se e Sta te v . R

yo n , 200 5- N MS C- 005, ¶

¶ 27, 1 9 3 9 , 1 3 7 N
. M
. 1 7 4 , 1 0 8 P
. 3 d1 0 3 2 ( h o l d i n g t h a t“p o l i c e o f f i c e r s may e n t e r

ah o me4

1 without a warrant or consent under the em ergency assistance doctrine” when police 2 h av e “ reasonable grounds to believe that there is an em ergency at hand and an 3 im m ed ia te ne ed

f or the ir as sis tanc e fo r the pr ote ct ionof li fe or pr ope rty ”)
. T he c as e 4 proceeded to trial, and Def endant was convicted on two co u n t s o f causin g great 5 bodi ly inj ur y by ve hic le , tw o c ounts of

a ggr av at ed

D W I, one c ount

of le av ing the 6 sc en e of

a n a cc ide nt, an d one count o f hom ic ide by ve hic le
. D ef

en dant n owappe al s. 7 DISC US SION 8 Stand ard of R eview 9 { 7} W e re view a district court’ s decision regarding a m otion to supp ress evidence 10 as a m ix ed qu es ti on of fact an d l aw. Sta te v . V

ande nbur g , 200 3- N MS C- 030, ¶

17, 134 11 N
. M. 566, 81 P. 3d 19. “ W e vie w the fa ct s inthe li ght m ost f av or ab le to the pr ev ai lin g 12 party a nd d ef er to the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s find ing s of his tor ic al f

ac ts and w itn es s 13 credibility

when supported bys ubstant ial evidence.” R yo n , 200 5- N MS C- 005, ¶ 11. 14 “ T he le ga lity

of ase arch , h owe ve r, ult im at el y tur ns o n th e que sti on o f 15 reasonableness.” Id

. Reas on ab le ne ss is de te rm in edde no vo . Id

. 16 Em ergenc y Assistance D octrine 17 { 8} D ef

en dant c ha lle nge s th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s r uling tha t the de put ie s’ e ntr y int o 18 D ef en dant’ s ho m e w as j ust if ie d un de r the e m er ge nc y a ssi stanc e doc tr ine
. Whil e 19 “ [w]arran tl es s s earc he s an d s ei zu res in si de a ho m e are pr es um pt iv el y un reas on ab le ,”17 Su

bse que nt t o our Su pr em e Co urt’ s de ci sio n in R yo n , the United States 1 18 Suprem e Court elim inated the second elem ent of the M itc he ll t es tb ec au s e an o ff

i ce r’s 19 “ subjective m otivatio n is irrelevant.” B rig ham Ci ty , U tah v . Stu art , 547 U
. S. 398 , 404 20 (2006). A lthou gh we state the M itc he ll te st a s our Su

pr em e Co urt ad opt ed

it in R yo n , 21 the subjective ele m ent of the test is ultim ately im m aterial to our analy sis in th is case. 5 1 the e m e r ge nc y

a ss i st a nc e d oc t r i ne i s on e o f t he “ f e ws pe c i f i c , n a rr ow l y

d e fined 2 exceptions.” Id

. ¶ 23. I n R

yo n , our S uprem e Court adopted the three-part te st utili zed 3 in P eo ple v . M itc he ll , 34 7 N.E. 2d 60 7, 6 09 (N.Y. 19 76 ). R yo n , 20 05 -NMSC -0 05 , ¶ 4 29 . It i s t he st at e’s bu rd en to es tabl is h all th ree e le m en ts . Id

. F ir st, “ the pol ic e m

ust 5 have reaso n ab le grounds to believe that there is an em ergency at hand and an 6 im m ediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or p ro p er t y.” Id

. 7 (a lte ratio n, int er

na l quot at ion m ar

ks, an d ci ta tio n om itt ed ). Se co nd, “ the se ar chm ust 8 no t b e p rimaril y mo t i v a t edby int en t t o a rres t an d s ei ze ev id en ce.” Id

. (a lte ratio n, 1 9 i n t e rn a l qu o t a t i o n mark s , an dc i t a t i o n o mi t t e d )
. F i n a l l y, “th e r e mu s tb e s o me 10 re as ona

ble ba sis , a

ppr oxi m at ing pr oba

ble c au se , to as soc ia te the e m er ge nc y w iththe 11 a r e ao r

p l a c e t o be s e arched. ” Id

. (a lte ratio n, int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks, a nd c itatio n 12 om it te d)
. 13 { 9} De fendant’ s argum ent largely focuses on the f

irst elem ent. D efendant argues 14 that the deputies did not have sufficient inform ation to re asonablybelieve that he wa s 15 in n ee d of

im m ed ia te a id. D ef

en dant a lso a rg ue s, und er the se co nd e le m en t of the 16 M itc he ll te st, that wi tho ut suc h re as ona ble be lie f, the de put ie s’ a ct ion s w er e pr im ar ily6

1 m otivated bytheir intention to apprehend him and gather evidence. In practice , 2 how ev er , thi s dis tin ct ion is ir re le vant be ca

use w ith out suc h r ea sona ble gr ound s, the 3 de pu ti es ’ act io ns were u nl awfu l. 4 { 10} A s r ec ogni ze d in R yo n , be ca use of the str ong pr iva cy int er es t in the hom e, the 5 f i r s te l e me n tr e qu i r e s a g e n u i n e e me r g e n c y. 2 0 0 5
- N M S C
- 0 0 5 , ¶ 2 6
. T h i s me a n s “a 6 str ong pe rc ep tio n that ac tio n is requir ed to p ro te ct a ga ins t i m

m ine nt d an ge r to l if

e or 7 lim b” and circum stances so “ sufficiently com pelling [as] to m ake a w arrantless entry 8 into th e hom e obje ctively rea sonable[.] ” Id

. ¶ 3 1. R e a so na

bl e ne ss i s “ tested 9 objec tively

under the totalityof the circ um stances.” Id

. ¶ 30. U se fu l fa ct or s f

or thi s 10 de te rm ina tio n are the “ pur pose a nd n at

ur e of the dis pa tc h, the ex ige nc y of the 11 sit ua tio n ba se d on the known fa ct s, an d the av ai la bil ity , fe as ibi lity an d e ff

ec tiv en es s 12 of alternatives to the ty pe o f i n t rusion actually

accom plish ed.” Id

. ¶ 32 (internal 13 quot at ion m ar

ks and c itatio n om itt ed ). F urthe rm or e, ge ne ra liz ed te sti m ony

r eg ar din g 14 a poss ibl e or

pot en tia l e m er ge nc y

is ins uf ficient t o c ar

ry the state ’ s burd enon this 15 el em en t. I nst ea d, “ of

fi ce rs m ust ha ve c re dib le a nd spe ci fi c inf orm at ionthat a

vic tim 16 is v er y li ke ly to be loc at ed

a t a part ic ular pla ce an d in ne ed of im m ed ia te a id t o a voi d 17 great bodily

harm or death.” Id

. ¶ 42
. 18 { 11} W e agre e w ith Defendant that the State fa iled to establis h that there w ere 19 re as ona

ble gr ound s fo r the de put ie s to be lie ve that an e m er ge nc y ne ce ssi ta te d th ei r7

1 im m ed ia te e ntr

y int o D ef en dant’ s hom e. T he onl y

spe ci fi c inf

orm at iona va ila

ble to 2 the de put ie s a t the ti m e w as tha t D ef en dant’ s tr

uc k ha d be eninv olv ed

in ana cc ide nt, 3 al be it a se ri ous one , an d tha t thr ee ind ivi dua ls w er e se enabandon ing the tr uc k. A t this 4 poin t, the d ep uties had no concrete inform ation that Defe ndant was the driver 5 in vo lv edin th e acc id en t, o r ev en at h om e. Id

. ¶ 43 (n o t ing th at the office rs w ere 6 unawar e if the def

endant was even in the hom e). 7 { 12} E ve n a ssu m ing the de put ie s kn ewthat D ef en dant w as the dr ive r, the y ha d no 8 sp eci fic in fo rm at io n t ha t h e was se rio us ly i nju red an d in ne edof i m m ed ia te aid
. See 9 id

. (s ta tin g th at

the of fi ce rs ’ inf orm at ion w as ins uf

fi ci en t w he re the y

“ did not kno w 10 the na tur e or ex te nt of the inj ur y ” or ev en “ w he the r he w as inj ur ed ). T he re w er e no 11 obvi ous ind ic at ion s inthe c ab of the tr uc k, suc h a s bl ood or

im pa ct s to the w ind shi el d 12 co m in g from in si de , th at an y of th e ve hi cl e’s oc cupa nt s w e r e i n ju red
. Se e Ci tyof 13 Fargo v. Ternes , 522 N
. W
. 2d 1 76, 177 -7 8 (N
. D
. 199 4) ( hol din g th at one 14 ci rc um stanc e j ust ify in g th e of fi ce rs ’ r ea sona

ble be lie f tha t a

dr ive r in an a cc ide nt 15 suf fe re d su ff ic ie ntl y se ri ous inj ur ie s w as the pr es en ce of “ blo od o n th e se at

a nd b loo d 16 m ingled with glass on the dashbo ard and steering wheel” ). Mor e im portantl y , non e 17 of the witnesses w ho saw the individ uals fleeing the truck t o l d deputies that th ey 18 ap pe ared in

jure d. See State v . G eisler , 576 A. 2d 12 83, 1289 (Conn . App. Ct. 1990 ), 19 va ca te d on oth er

gro unds , 498 U
. S. 101 9 (1 991) ( statin g th at the la ck of ind ic at ion8

1 by wit ne ss es tha t the dr ive r w as inj ur ed or in ne ed of a ssi stanc e ca st d oubt

on the 2 not ionthat the “ dr ive r w as inj ur ed to the poi nt o f ne ed ing im m ed ia te a id” ). I nde ed , 3 the fact that the suspects had fled the truck, and, in De fendant’ s case, conceivably had 4 run hom e, is incons iste n t wi th the degree of inj ury necessitating imm ediate police 5 as si st an ce by way of a warra nt le s s e n t ry. See State v. Seavey , 789 A
. 2d 6 21, 624 6 (N
. H
. 200 1) ( statin g th at a w itn es s’ s obse rv at ion of the de fe ndant w al kin g aw ay f ro m 7 the accident and down the street “ indicated that she wa s not phy sicall y i m paired”); 8 Co mmon wea lt h v . DiGer on imo , 652 N
. E
. 2d 1 48, 155 ( Ma ss. App. Ct
. 199 5) ( “ [T he 9 de fe ndant’ s] dr ivi ng o ff f ro m the a cc ide nt scene s ugge ste d la ck of inc ap ac itatin g 10 injury .” ). 11 { 13} F i n a l l y, n o c i r c u ms t a n c e s a tDe f e n d a n t ’s h o me i n d i c a t e da ge nu in e em e r g e n c y. 12 No s ig ns of i nju ry , su ch as b l o o d , were n ot edon th e p ro pe rty. See P eople v. 13 Copenhaver , 21 P
. 3d 4 13, 416 ( Co lo. App. 200 0) (a ff irm ing the of

fi ce r’ s w ar

rantl es s 14 en tr y w he re the of

fi ce r not ed blo od ins ide the ve hic le inv olv ed in the c ra sh and a

tr ai l 15 of blo od l ea din g f

ro m the out sid e of

the de fe ndant’ s a

partm en t thr oughthe 16 residence). No sounds fr om insid e the hous e aler ted the deputies th at D efendant w as 17 in ne edof i m

m ed ia te aid
. D iG eron imo , 652 N
. E
. 2d a t 15 5 ( not ing that so unds of 1 8 m oan i n g o r

d i s t r e s s m a y

b e i n d i c a t i v e o f

a n e m e r g e n c y

i n s i d e t h e r e s i d e n c e )
. A n d, 19 while in som e case s an occupant’ s failu re to respond to repeated knocking can9

1 ind ic at e ane m erg en cy , e spe ci al ly in ins tanc es w he re the of fi ce rs a lr ea dy

ha ve 2 specific inform ation that the victim is in the hom e and seriously injure d, the deputies 3 did no t have that chance here because they entered the hom e im

m ediately after 4 an no un ci n g t he ir p res en ce. See Ternes , 522 N
. W
. 2d a t 17 7- 78 ( hol din g th at the 5 warrantless entry

wa s perm issib le where th e o ffice rs k new the def endant was inside, 6 ha d be eninv olv ed

in a se ri ous accident , w as ble ed ing , a nd whe re the y r ec ei ve d no 7 response after knocking on the front d oor for several m inutes, entered the r esidence). 8 G ive n th es e ci rc um stanc es , w e co nc lud e tha t the de put ies did no t have r ea sona ble 9 gr ound s to be lie ve that D ef en dant m igh t have be eninj ur ed to ane xte nt r equir ing the ir 10 im m ediate entry

and assistance. 11 { 14} Although the State f ailed to establish that the o bje ctive circum stances 12 ne ce ssi ta te d aw ar

rantl es s e ntr

y , w e ar e sim ilarl y

unc onv in ced that the de put ie s’ 13 te sti m on y was suf

fi ci en t t o e sta

bli sh tha t a

ge nui ne e m er ge nc y

ne ce ssi ta te d th ei r 14 entry . B oth deputies testified that the reason they entered the hom e w as because they 15 we re “ concerned” f

or Defendant’ s safety . D eputy Martinez a cknowledged that they 16 did not kno ww ha t D ef

en dant’ s in

jurie s w er e, if

a ny . Co nsi ste nt w iththe de put ie s’ 17 lack of specific inform ation, D eputy Martinez charac terized the e ntry as a “ we lfare 18 check.” How ever, this testim ony does not establ ish the requisit e circ um s tances 19 needed to dem onstrate a legitim ate em ergency requiring imm ediate police assistance.10

1 State v. B aca , 2007 -N MCA -016, ¶ 31, 141 N .M. 65, 150 P.3d 1015 (“ R yo n m ak es it 2 cl ear tha t the bur de n to de m onstrate a n e m er ge nc y is high
. ”) ; Sta te v . M art in , 193 3 P. 3d 9 93, 998 -9 9 ( O r. Ct
. App. 200 8) ( statin g that w hil e the of

fi ce rs ’ te sti m ony 4 re gard ing co nc er

n abou t the de fe ndant’ s w el l- be ing a nd i f she w as “ okay ” af te r she 5 w as inv olv ed in hit an d run “ m igh t re ve al w el l- fo unde d spe cu la tio n tha t pe rh ap s a ll 6 w as not

w ell wit h de fen dant, it

f al ls f ar sho rt of r ev ea lin g abe lie f tha t i m m ed ia te 7 int er ve nti on w as ne ce ssary

to pr ote ct he r lif e. ”)
. I nst ea d, thi s te sti m ony is the ty pe of 8 s p ec u l at i o n an d co n

je ct u re t h at we h av e p re v i o u s l y re je ct ed as s up p o rt i n g an o ff i ce r’s 9 warra nt le ss en try un de r th e em erg en cy ass is ta nc e d oc tri ne . See B aca , 20 07 -NMCA10 016, ¶ 27 (“ Speculation and c onjec ture are insufficient to establish an em ergency at 11 hand and an im

m ed ia te ne ed

f or pol ic e as sis tanc e. ” (a lte ratio n, int er na l qu ota tio n 12 m ar ks, a nd c itatio n om itt ed )) ; R yo n , 2005 -N MSC- 005, ¶ 43 ( stating th at the office rs 13 ha d in suf

fi ci en t i nf orm at ionto j ust if

y e ntr y int o th e re sid en ce w he re the y “ ha d on ly 14 generalized, nonsp ecific inform ation that [the d] efendant m ight be insid e [the hom e] 15 and that he m ight h ave sustained a head or face i njury .” ). W e th eref ore conclude that 16 the district court erroneou sly denied Def

endant’ s m otion to supp ress the evidence 17 seized as a r esult of the deputi es’ unreasonable entry into Defe ndant’s hom e. 18 Suf ficienc y of the Evidenc e 19 { 15} D ef

en dant c ha lle nge s th e suf

fi ci en c y o f the e vid en ce sup portin g hi s c onvi ct ion11

1 fo r ca usi ng gr eat bo dil y

inj ur y by ve hic le to V ivi anW ooda ll co ntr ar y to N MS A 197 8, 2 Section 66-8-101 (20 04). Bec au se we are rev ers in g th e di st ric t co ur t’s jud gm en t, we 3 co nsi de r w he the r suf

fi ci en t ev ide nc e supp orte d th is c onvi ct ionin or de r to d et er m ine 4 w he the r doub le j eo pardy pr inc ipl es w oul d pr ohi bit r etri al of

D efendant o n th is 5 ch arg e. Sta te v . V

ali no , 201 2- N MC A -1 05, ¶ 18, 287 P
. 3d 3 72. B ec au se D ef en dant 6 do es no t ch al le ng e th e su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce re ga rd in g h is ot he r co nv ic ti on s, we 7 do n ot unde rt ak e a sim ilar doub le j eo pardy a na ly sis in co nne ct ionw iththo se c harg es . 8 { 16} “ Whe n r ev ie w in g a cha lle nge to the suf fi ci en cy of the e vid en ce , w e m

ust 9 determin e wh ether substantial evid ence of e ither a direc t or circum stantial nature 10 exists to suppo rt a ve rd i ct o f guilt bey ond a reasonable doub t with respect to ever y 11 elem ent essential to a conviction.” Se e Sta te v. T em ple ton , 200 7- N MC A -1 08, ¶ 28, 1 2 1 4 2 N
. M
. 3 6 9 , 1 6 5 P
. 3 d1 1 4 5 ( i n t e rn a l qu o t a t i o n mark s a n dc i t a t i o n o mi t t e d )
. “A 13 review ing court m

ust view the evidence in the light m ost f avorable to th e s t at e, 14 re sol vin g a ll co nf

lic ts the re in and indul gin g all pe rm iss ibl e inf er en ce s th er ef

ro m in 15 favor of the ver dict.” Sta te v . Sut phi n , 198 8-NMSC- 03 1, ¶ 21, 107 N
. M. 126 , 753 16 P. 2d 1 314. 17 { 17} Inor de r to c onvi ct D ef en dant o f caus in g gr eat bo dil y inj ur y by ve hic le , the 1 8 St at e w as r e qu i r e dt o p r o v e b e y o n dar e a s o n ab l e d o ub tt h a t( 1 ) “ [ t ] h e d e f e n d a nt 19 ope rate d am oto r ve hic le w hil e unde r the influe nc e of int oxi catin g li quor , or w hil e12

1 under th e in flu en ce of va lium , . . . or

in a re ck le ss m an ne r” ; ( 2) “ [t ] he de fe ndant 2 thereby caused the great bo dily injury to Vivian W oodall”, and (3) “ [t] his happ ened 3 in Ri o Arrib a Co un ty, New Mex ic o on or ab ou t th e 28 th da y o f M a y 20 11 .” 4 De fe n d an ts p ec i fi ca l l y ar g u es t h at t h er e w as i n s u ff i c i e n t ev i d en ce t h at Woo d al l ’s 5 inj ur ie s c onst itu te d gr eat bo dil y inj ur y . Co nsi ste nt w ithU JI 14- 131, gr eat bo dil y 6 inj ur y w as de fi ne d inthe j ur

y ins tr uc tio ns a s “ aninj ur

y to a per son w hic h c re at es a 7 hig h pr oba

bil ity of de ath or r es ult s inse ri ous dis fi gur em en t or re sul ts in p er m an en t 8 orpro lo ng edim

pa irment o f th e u se of a ny m em be r ororg an of t he bo dy.” 9 { 18} W ooda ll te sti fi ed a t tri al that sh e ex pe ri en ce d se ve re br uis ing , r oa d r as h, a nd 10 br uis ed r ibs a s a re sul t of the co lli sio n. T he br uis ing an d r oa d r as h c ove re d he r ri ght 11 sid e. S he te sti fi ed

that sh e w as una

ble to w ork f

or appr oxi m at el y

am onth. I n a ddi tio n, 12 fo r ap pr oxi m at el y

the fi rs t tw o w ee ks, she w as larg el y una ble to m ove be ca

use of the 13 ex tr em e pa in f

ro m he r br uis ed r ibs
. S he te sti fi ed

that a t c er

ta in t im es she sti ll 14 ex pe ri en ce s pa in r es ult ing f ro m he r br uis ed r ibs
. 15 { 19} V ie w ing the e vid en ce in the li ght m ost f av or ab le to the ve rd ic t, the j ur y c oul d 16 de te rm ine that W ooda ll suf fe re d gr eat bo dil y

inj ur y . “ Pr olo nge d im

pa irm en t” is not 17 a te ch ni cal ter m . Cf

. Sta te v . J

im , 1 988-N MC A -0 92, ¶

20, 107 N
. M. 779 , 765 P
. 2d 18 195 (c onstru ing sim ilar t e r m , “p r o tr a c t e d

i m p a i r m e n t ” )
. “ P ro lon ge d im

pa irm en t, ” lik e 19 “ pr otr ac te d im

pa irm en t, ” m eans a “ le ngthy or unus ua lly lon g tim e un de r the13

1 circum stances.” Id. ¶ 21 (internal q uotatio n m arks and citation om itted). T hus, it was 2 for the j ur y

to determ ine whether the im pairm ent was f

or a sufficie ntly

extended 3 pe rio d o f ti m e so as t o m eet th is de fin it io n. Id

. In t his case, the j ury

determ ined that 4 W ooda ll’ s e xtr em e an d im m obi liz ing pa in o ve r the c our se of the m onth, in ad dit ion 5 to recu rren t b ou ts of p ai n, wer e su ffi ci en t t o c o n s t it ut e g reat bo di ly inju ry , and we 6 will not interfere with its determ ination
. Ac cordingly , suff icient evidence suppo rted 7 D ef en dant’ s c onvi ct ionon this c harg e, a nd r etri al on this c harg e is n ot b ar re d. 8 CON CLU SION 9 { 20} Fo r t h e f

o re g o i n g re as o n s , we re v er s e t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s d en i al o f D ef en d an t ’s 10 m oti on t o su

ppr es s and r em an d f

or pr oc ee din gs c onsi ste nt w iththi s op ini on. 11 { 21} IT IS S O ORDERE D.
12

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ 13 C Y N TH IAA . F R Y , Ju dg e
14 WE CO NCUR:
15

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 16 JA M ES J. WE C HS LE R , Ju dg e
17

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 18 R OD ERIC K KEN N ED Y , Ju dg e