This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Reports. Please 1 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 2 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated 3 errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does 4 not include the filing date. 5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 7 Plaintiff-Appellee, 8

v. No. 29,486 9 CODY EAST, 10 Defendant-Appellant. 11 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF VALENCIA COUNTY 12 John W. Pope, District Judge 13 Gary K. King, Attorney General 14 Nicole Beder, Assistant Attorney General 15 Santa Fe, NM 16 for Appellee 17 Chief Public Defender 18 Kathleen T. Baldridge, Assistant Appellate Defender 19 Santa Fe, NM 20 for Appellant 21 MEMORANDUM OPINION 22 SUTIN, Judge. 232 Defendant Cody East appeals his convic tions of three counts of child abuse 1 (endangerment) under NMSA 1978, Secti on 30-6-1 (2005) (amended 2009), and one 2 count of battery under NMSA 1978, Section 30-3-4 (1963). 3 Defendant and his brother picked up and drove five young women ranging in 4 age from thirteen to nineteen to their family’s home. Defendant’s child abuse 5 convictions involved Sarah M., Eva R., and Rachel P., and his petty misdemeanor 6 battery conviction involved Sarah M. Defendant and most of the young women had 7 consumed what appears to be a significant amount of alcohol, and Defendant “took 8 some pills.” Defendant phys ically damaged property, committed battery on several 9 individuals, and at one point was seen holding a kitchen knife. 10 Defendant’s appellate points are (1) the di strict court abused its discretion and 11 denied Defendant due process in admitting several items in evidence that were not 12 timely disclosed to Defendant, and (2) the di strict court erred in refusing to suppress 13 statements made by Defendant to police o fficers who advised him of his rights while 14 he was wounded, bleeding, intoxicated, and suicidal because the statements were not 15 the product of a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of his rights. 16 The Untimely Disclosure Issue 17 Defendant complains of failures of the State to timely disclose several different 18 documents, including witness statements, medical-related documents, and 193 photographs. Defendant also complains that his counsel was not able to interview a 1 police officer and a neighbor. See State v. Mora , 1997-NMSC-060, ¶ 43, 124 N.M. 2 346, 950 P.2d 789 (setting out what a court is to consider on the issue of late 3 disclosure of evidence), abrogated on other grounds as recognized by Kersey v. 4 Hatch , 2010-NMSC-020, 148 N.M. 381, 237 P.3d 683. We review the admission of 5 evidence involving alleged discovery viol ations for abuse of discretion. State v. 6 Desnoyers , 2002-NMSC-031, ¶ 25, 132 N.M. 756, 55 P.3d 968, abrogated on other 7 grounds by State v. Forbes , 2005-NMSC-027, 138 N.M . 264, 119 P.3d 144; State v. 8 Jackson , 2004-NMCA-057, ¶ 10, 135 N.M. 689, 92 P.3d 1263; State v. Wilson , 2001- 9 NMCA-032, ¶ 39, 130 N.M. 319, 24 P.3d 351, abrogated on other grounds by State 10 v. Montoya , 2005-NMCA-078, 137 N.M. 713, 114 P.3d 393. 11 We have reviewed the arguments. Wesee no need to detail them or the 12 evidence and circumstances. Wehold that there exists no basis on which to rule that 13 the district court abused its discretion. We see no violation of Rules 5-501 or 5-505 14 NMRA relating to disclosure by the State, because the circumst ances neither reflect 15 any material breach of any duty by the pros ecutor, nor any intentional deprivation of 16 evidence. Further, Defendant fails to show how any evidence or circumstance was 17 material such that there existed a reasonabl e probability that the outcome of the trial 18 would have been different had the eviden ce been disclosed or obtained earlier. See 194 State v. McDaniel , 2004-NMCA-022, ¶ 14, 135 N.M. 84, 84 P.3d 701 (holding that 1 the defendant failed to show“how his cross-examination would have been improved 2 by an earlier disclosure or how he would have prepared differently for trial”). 3 Moreover, Defendant did not specifically show how he was prejudiced by any late 4 disclosure. See State v. Rojo , 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 61, 126 N.M. 438, 971 P.2d 829 5 (refusing to hold that the prosecution’s delay in disclosing evidence required reversal 6 in the absence of a showing of prejudice from the non-disclosure); see also McDaniel , 7 2004-NMCA-022, ¶ 6 (“The prejudice must be more than speculativ e.”). We note that 8 the court made curative rulings with regard to some of the discovery issues. 9 The Suppression Issue 10 Defendant claims that statements he made to law enforcement officers at the 11 scene were involuntary because he was inno condition to unders tand he was waiving 12 his constitutional rights; hewas wounded, bleeding, and intoxicated, and he had 13 suicidal thoughts. We determine whether th e law was correctly applied to the facts, 14 we view the facts in the light most favor able to support the d ecision reached, and we 15 resolve all conflicts and indulge all in ferences in favor of the decision. See State v. 16 Vargas , 1996-NMCA-016, ¶ 8, 121 N.M. 316, 910 P.2d 950. 17 We reject the claims. Defendant’s mo tion to suppress was untimely, having 18 been made on the eve of trial. SeeRules 5-212(C) and 5-601(D) NMRA. On the 195 merits, the evidence reflects that Defendant initiated the encounter by approaching the 1 officer and wanting to speak to the officer to tell his side. Nothing in the record 2 requires a determination th at, based on how Defendant described his physical and 3 mental conditions, along with the circumstances surrounding the making of the 4 statements, the district court’s discretion compelled suppression of the statements. 5 The district court was not required to conc lude from Defendant’s description of his 6 condition that his waiver of rights was nota product of a free and deliberate choice. 7 There exists no evidence of intimid ation, coercion, or deception. See State v. 8 Martinez , 1999-NMSC-018, ¶ 14, 127 N.M. 207, 979 P.2d 718 (stating the 9 prosecution’s burden is to demonstrate thatthe waiver was a product of a free and 10 deliberate choice rather than intimidation, coercion, or deception and that the waiver 11 was made with a full awareness of the nature of the right and the consequences of 12 abandoning the right). The evidence re flects that Defendant understood the 13 exchanges, was cognizant of the circumstances, and engaged in coherent conversation. 14 Defendant did not proffer evidence to the contrary. 15 CONCLUSION 16 We affirm. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 186 __________________________________ 1 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 27 WE CONCUR: 1

_________________________________ 2 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 3

_________________________________ 4 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 5