State v. Cano-Sammis

553 P.3d 541

2024-NMCA-061

STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Margaret CANO-SAMMIS a/k/a Margaret A. Cano-Sammis, Defendant-Appellant.

No. A-1-CA-40886

Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

Filing Date: June 5, 2024

Certiorari Denied, July 23, 2024, No. S-1-SC-40469

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LINCOLN COUNTY, Daniel A. Bryant, District Court Judge

Raúl Torrez, Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, Aletheia V.P. Allen, Solicitor General, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellee

Gary C. Mitchell, P.C., Gary C. Mitchell, Ruidoso, NM, for Appellant

OPINION

WRAY, Judge.

{1} Defendant Margaret Cano-Sammis was on a daily regimen of marijuana and methadone to address numerous health issues. After a sleepless night caring for her brother, Defendant drove her brother to a doctor’s appointment and on the way home, veered from the road, and struck and killed a seventy-eight-year-old great-grandmother (Victim). A jury convicted Defendant of homicide by vehicle (driving while under the influence of drugs), contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 66-8-101(A) (2016). Defendant's appeal centers on whether the district court properly admitted evidence concerning Defendant's alleged impairment by drugs. Defendant relatedly challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction and the district court’s rejection of Defendant's proposed jury instructions. Because we conclude that (1) the State established sufficient foundation for the admitted evidence, (2) the evidence supported the conviction, and (3) the district court properly refused Defendant’s proposed jury instructions, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

{2} In July 2017, Defendant was driving in Lincoln, New Mexico, when she veered off the road and struck Victim, who was walking with her family to visit a historical site. Accident reconstruction testimony established that Defendant’s truck was travelling a minimum of fifteen miles-per-hour when it hit Victim and continued for approximately thirty-one feet before hitting a parked car. The absence of tire marks indicated that the brakes on Defendant’s truck did not engage. Victim’s son testified that when he got to the truck, Victim was under a tire, and he yelled to Defendant to back the truck up. Victim died before paramedics arrived.

{3} Multiple law enforcement officers arrived at the scene, as well as paramedics who unsuccessfully attempted to resuscitate Victim. A Lincoln County Sheriff’s deputy (the deputy) took Defendant’s statement, and Defendant reported that she was driving slowly, and "the next thing that she remembered there were people yelling at her." The deputy asked whether Defendant had taken any medication, and Defendant responded that she had taken her prescribed methadone and marijuana that morning for pain. Results of a blood draw performed later that day confirmed the presence of marijuana and methadone in Defendant’s bloodstream.

{4} A New Mexico State Police sergeant (the sergeant) arrived and conducted standard field sobriety tests (SFSTs) as well as two, alternate sobriety tests—the "estimate-thirty-seconds" test and the "finger-to-nose" test. The sergeant testified that he observed eyelid tremors while conducting the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test as well as during the alternate "estimate-thirty-seconds" test. He further testified that Defendant failed to follow instructions during the HGN and the walk-and-turn test, had difficulty maintaining balance, and consistently counted slowly, both during the one-leg stand test as well as during the "estimate-thirty seconds" test. The sergeant’s observations related to Defendant’s performance on the SFSTs were recorded in the police report.

{5} Before trial, Defendant filed a motion in limine to prohibit the State from offering into evidence any standards correlating an amount of marijuana in Defendant’s system to impairment, because unlike blood alcohol levels, specific blood levels of marijuana, measured by the presence of the chemical THC, do not correlate to impaired driving. At the hearing on Defendant’s motion, it became clear that Defendant contested not only the admission of the level of the THC in her system, but also all testimony and evidence that marijuana use causes driving impairment. The State’s expert, the chief of the Forensic Toxicology Bureau of the New Mexico Department of Health (the expert), testified that studies observing marijuana and driving had shown "a significant difference between sober state, placebo state, and the drug state" in relation to maintaining a lane, a consistent following distance, and speed. Preferring to marijuana, the expert stated that the studies "broadly" demonstrate that "the presence of these drugs can cause impairment." The State then proffered the expert to offer the opinion that in the present case, Defendant was impaired by marijuana based on the presence of marijuana in Defendant’s blood in combination with other facts gleaned from the investigatory record. To support the position that no scientific evidence correlated marijuana use with impaired driving, Defendant referenced multiple studies and articles. Defendant, however, relied on cross-examination at the hearing and declined to submit any evidence on the subject—including the articles and studies or expert testimony—to the district court. The district court requested additional briefing on whether a toxicologist could rely on an amount of marijuana present in blood together with "all of the other factors" in order to provide an opinion on impairment.

{6} The parties submitted the additional briefing, and the district court entered an order granting Defendant’s motion in part and prohibiting the State from presenting testimony that a particular level of THC in the bloodstream equates to impairment. The district court did, however, allow the expert to provide an opinion that Defendant was impaired based on a combination of factors, which included the results of the blood draw, driving behavior, statements, and observations during the SFSTs.

{7} During the four-day jury trial, Defendant presented evidence that she suffered from a seizure disorder that manifested for the first time when her truck hit and killed Victim and that because of her brother’s medical difficulties, she had been awake most of the night and was sleep deprived. The State argued that "her drugs caused her to fall asleep and drive off the road" and any "unconsciousness was due to the marijuana, it was due to the methadone, and that makes it criminal." Ultimately, the jury found Defendant to be guilty of homicide by vehicle, and the district court imposed a nine-year sentence. Defendant appeals.

DISCUSSION

{8} Defendant asks us to determine (1) that the district court improperly admitted evidence concerning Defendant’s impairment by drugs, (2) whether sufficient evidence supported Defendant’s conviction, and (3) whether the district court incorrectly rejected Defendant’s proposed jury instructions. We begin with Defendant’s challenge to the admission of the impairment evidence.

1. The District Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Admitting the Evidence of Impairment

[1, 2] {9} Defendant first argues that the district court admitted unreliable evidence of impairment by marijuana and methadone. The admission of expert testimony and scientific evidence is "within the sound discretion of the [district] court and will not be reversed absent a showing of abuse of that discretion." State v. Alberico, 1993-NMSC-047, ¶ 58, 116 N.M. 156, 861 P.2d 192. A district court abuses its discretion only if its decision indicates a misapprehension of the law, State v. Vargas, 2016-NMCA-038, ¶ 10, 368 P.3d 1232, or is manifestly erroneous, arbitrary, unwarranted, or is "clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court." Alberico, 1993-NMSC-047, ¶¶ 58, 63, 116 N.M. 156, 861 P.2d 192.

[3] {10} The admission of expert testimony and other scientific evidence is largely governed by Rule 11-702 NMRA. This rule has been interpreted by our courts to require the proponent of expert testimony to satisfy three prerequisites for admissibility: (1) the expert is qualified; (2) the testimony proffered will assist the trier of fact; and (3) the testimony concerns "scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge with a reliable basis." State v. Yepez, 2021-NMSC-010, ¶ 19, 483 P.3d 576 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The district court must exercise a "gate[ ]keeping function and ensure that the expert’s testimony is reliable," State v. Torrez, 2009-NMSC-029, ¶ 21, 146 N.M. 331, 210 P.3d 228, so that "speculative and unfounded opinions do not reach the jury," Yepez, 2021-NMSC-010, ¶ 19, 483 P.3d 576 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also State v. Torres, 1999-NMSC-010, ¶ 24, 127 N.M. 20, 976 P.2d 20 ("[I]t is error to admit expert testimony involving scientific knowledge unless the party offering such testimony first establishes the evidentiary reliability of the scientific knowledge."). In the present case, Defendant contends that the expert’s opinion was not sufficiently scientifically reliable to demonstrate impairment by marijuana and methadone. Specifically, Defendant contends that the district court improperly allowed the State "to present results of a blood draw and … allow[ed] the State’s ‘expert’ to state an opinion … [D]efendant was impaired" but "[a]fter assessing the lack of scientific research, the [district] court should have determined that more research is needed to determine a method for scientifically proving impairment for the use of marijuana/methadone."

[4] {11} We view the expert’s opinion in two parts. First, the expert provided testimony that marijuana and methadone can cause driving impairment as measured by certain physical behaviors like sleepiness or focus problems. Second, the expert used that principle to further opine that Defendant’s driving was impaired by marijuana and methadone based on an aggregate of information...