In State V

In State v. Gonzalez, the New Mexico defendant had been charged with operating a motor vehicle under the influence of marijuana. A police officer concluded that the defendant was under the influence of marijuana because of some external indications involving bloodshot and watery eyes. The defendant had admitted smoking marijuana at some non-described time in the immediate past. Although a blood test was performed, the results were never admitted in court against the defendant. The reviewing court:

A) reversed the driver's conviction for operating under the influence of a drug because the police officer would have been unable to have determined the extent of her impairment merely by looking at the defendant and by talking with her.
B) reversed the driver's conviction for operating a motor vehicle under the influence of a drug because the police officer was not qualified as an expert witness to smell and recognize the odor of marijuana.
C) upheld the conviction on the theory that the trial court made a proper ruling allowing the officer to testify that the defendant was under the influence of marijuana because the officer had prior experience with drugs and could recognize the smell and appearance of marijuana, such as to allow him to determine whether the defendant driver was impaired by marijuana use.
D) upheld the conviction because any lay person can evaluate the extent of marijuana intoxication by looking at a person under the influence of the drug.