{
  "id": 1577309,
  "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Pete CHAVEZ, Defendant-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Chavez",
  "decision_date": "1981-05-12",
  "docket_number": "No. 5013",
  "first_page": "313",
  "last_page": "314",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "96 N.M. 313"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "629 P.2d 1242"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.M. Ct. App.",
    "id": 9025,
    "name": "Court of Appeals of New Mexico"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 52,
    "name_long": "New Mexico",
    "name": "N.M."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "91 N.M. 634",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1571015
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/91/0634-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "93 N.M. 470",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1568758
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/93/0470-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "87 A.L.R.2d 370",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. 2d",
      "year": 1963,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 Yale L.J. 1074",
      "category": "journals:journal",
      "reporter": "Yale L.J.",
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 315,
    "char_count": 4187,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.815,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.199898466681498e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3841117764008635
    },
    "sha256": "28b83abd3394ca2b4d384dd92522b3d0749244c0a61aa4e13fadaf62ca5aa6bb",
    "simhash": "1:adb309aa914d8c89",
    "word_count": 677
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:25:27.930698+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "HERNANDEZ, C. J., and WOOD, J., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Pete CHAVEZ, Defendant-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nHENDLEY, Judge.\nThe defendant was charged with driving while intoxicated contrary to \u00a7 66-8-102, N.M.S.A.1978 (Supp.1980). The State appeals the trial court\u2019s granting of defendant\u2019s motion to exclude any evidence of defendant\u2019s refusal to undergo a blood alcohol test at the time of his arrest. We affirm.\nWe decide only the issue of relevancy of the refusal in light of our case law and statutes. The State in its Reply Brief states: \u201cIt is apparent from the issue given in the Docketing Statement that the trial judge refused to admit the refusal into evidence because he thought it to be testimonial evidence covered by the Fifth Amendment.\u201d However, in its Brief in Chief, the State\u2019s argument did not rest merely with the absence of a constitutional prohibition against the admission into evidence of one\u2019s refusal to take a blood alcohol test. The State briefed a broader spectrum:\nTaking these cases as a whole, it becomes manifest that there is no constitutional prohibition against admitting a refusal into evidence. The closer question is whether there is some statutory reason not to allow the refusal into evidence. The State submits that because the Legislature has not prohibited the admissibility of a refusal, there is absolutely no reason why it should not be admitted.\nWith the issue thus framed, we do not address the claim by the State that the Legislature has provided a penalty for refusal as relevant to show that a person does not have the right of refusal. See, \u00a7\u00a7 66-8-105, et seq., N.M.S.A.1978 (Supp.1980). This contention does not address the individual\u2019s duty, nor does it shed light on the relevance of one\u2019s refusal in light of the entire statutory scheme in New Mexico. Nor are we concerned with the assertion that the refusal is relevant as circumstantial evidence of the suspect\u2019s belief that the results of the examination would have been incriminating. See, Note, Constitutional Limitations on the Taking of Body Evidence, 78 Yale L.J. 1074 (1969). Such a pronouncement merely invites the contrary view that the admission of one\u2019s refusal is misleading, taking the jury too far afield because there might be independent reasons' \u2014 for example, cost, religious scruples, distrust of the technicians, distrust of the results \u2014 motivating one\u2019s refusal. See also, the cases pro and con at Annotation, 87 A.L.R.2d 370 (1963).\nOur decision in State v. Steele, 93 N.M. 470, 601 P.2d 440 (Ct.App.1979) was based on prior law. In State v. Steele, when the defendant refused to submit to a blood test the officers obtained a valid search warrant and extracted blood samples. This Court held that the Legislature gave the defendant more protection than was afforded by the Constitution and that, after his refusal, the result of the blood alcohol test taken by means of a valid search warrant was properly excluded. Thereafter, the Legislature amended the statute. However, the amendment only permits the State, after a refusal, to obtain a warrant upon a written affidavit showing probable cause.\nIn light of this history, we find no error in the trial court\u2019s exclusion of the defendant\u2019s refusal to take the blood alcohol test. Under \u00a7 66-8-111, N.M.S.A.1978 (Supp. 1980), the fact of the defendant\u2019s refusal would be no more a relevant circumstance to establish consciousness of guilt than the fact of the arresting officer\u2019s refraining from obtaining a warrant indicates that he believed that the defendant was not intoxicated. See, State v. Barela, 91 N.M. 634, 578 P.2d 335 (Ct.App.1978). Under the facts of this case, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court\u2019s exclusion of defendant\u2019s refusal. It was simply not relevant evidence. N.M.R.Evid. 401 and 403, N.M.S.A.1978.\nAffirmed.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nHERNANDEZ, C. J., and WOOD, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HENDLEY, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Jeff Bingaman, Atty. Gen., Charles F. Noble, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellant.",
      "John B. Bigelow, Chief Public Defender, Andrea L. Smith, Asst. Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, for defendant-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "629 P.2d 1242\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Pete CHAVEZ, Defendant-Appellee.\nNo. 5013.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nMay 12, 1981.\nCertiorari Denied June 23,1981.\nJeff Bingaman, Atty. Gen., Charles F. Noble, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellant.\nJohn B. Bigelow, Chief Public Defender, Andrea L. Smith, Asst. Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, for defendant-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0313-01",
  "first_page_order": 341,
  "last_page_order": 342
}