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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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

v. NO. A-1-CA-36737 4 COLTON PUTT, 5 Defendant-Appellee. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEA COUNTY 7 Lee A. Kirksey, District Judge 8 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 Martha Anne Kelly, Assistant Attorney General 11 Albuquerque, NM 12 for Appellant 13 Sawyers Law Group 14 James W. Klipstine 15 Hobbs, NM 16 for Appellee 17 MEMORANDUM OPINION 18 ZAMORA, Judge. 192 {1} The State has appealed from an order denying a motion for reconsideration of 1 a discovery issue. We previously issueda notice of proposed summary disposition in 2 which we proposed to dismiss. The State has filed a memorandum in opposition. 3 After due consideration, we remain unpersuaded that this matter is properly before us. 4 We therefore dismiss. 5
{2} As the State has tacitly acknowledged, [MIO 12] the order at issue is 6 interlocutory in nature. See In re Estate of Pino, III, 1993-NMCA-087, ¶ 5, 115 N.M. 7 759, 858 P.2d 426 (explaining that orders requiring discovery generally do not 8 constitute final dispositions, and therefore they are not normally appealable except 9 upon the grant of applications for interl ocutory appeals). The circumstances under 10 which we statutorily entertain interlocutory appeals by the State incriminal cases are 11 strictly limited. See NMSA 1978, § 39-3-3(B) (1972). This is not such a case. 12
{3} The State seeks immediate review pursuan t to its constitutional right appeal as 13 an aggrieved party. [DS 1; MIO 1-14] However, as we previously observed, [CN 2-4] 14 the constitutional right established by Article VI, Section 2 of the New Mexico 15 Constitution does not confer upon the State an absolute right to appeal every adverse 16 ruling immediately. State v. Heinsen , 2005-NMSC-035, ¶ 9, 138 N.M. 441, 121 P.3d 17 1040. The State must demonstrate that the underlying ruling is contrary to law, and 183 that its interest is sufficiently compelling. Id. As we explained in the notice of 1 proposed summary disposition and as wefurther describe below, we remain 2 unpersuaded that either of these require ments has been satisfied in this case. 3
{4} The order entered below requires the State to produce a copy of certain 4 photographic evidence to the defense. [M IO 4] The State does not dispute the 5 relevance of that evidence, or Defendant’s entitlement to discovery thereof. See 6 generallyRule 5-501(A)(3) NMRA (requiring the St ate to “disclose or make available 7 to the defendant” any photographs or copies thereof, which are within the custody or 8 control of the State, “which are material to the preparation of the defense or are 9 intended for use by the [S]tate as evidence at the trial”). Instead, the State contends 10 that it should have been permitted to retain exclusive possession of the images; and 11 to the extent that the defense wished to inspect them, the State contends that the 12 defense should have been requi red to view them at the police department. [MIO 3-4] 13
{5} Nothing within Rule 5-501 or any other authority of which we are aware 14 authorizes the State to unilaterally impos e such conditions upon criminal defendants’ 15 entitlement to discovery of material evidence. Absent such authority, we remain of the 16 opinion that the district courts are at liberty to exercise their discretion in managing 17 discovery practices. Cf. State v. DeBorde , 1996-NMCA-042, ¶ 13, 121 N.M. 601, 915 18 P.2d 906 (“[W]e leave it to the district court’s discretion to determine if further 194 disclosure is reasonable under the circum stances of each case.”). And although the 1 State contends that Rule 5-501(F) might have supported a different result, [MIO 11] 2 that provision clearly contemplates a balanci ng of interests. In this case the specific 3 approach taken by the districtcourt, requiring the State to provide a single copy of the 4 images, to be “guarded in the law o ffice” of defense counsel without further 5 replication or distribution of any kind and to be viewed by De fendant and defense 6 counsel exclusively, [RP 78] reflects a reasonable balancing of Defendant’s 7 entitlement to discovery of material eviden ce against the State’s concerns relative to 8 the sensitivity of the images. We therefor e reject the State’s assertion that the 9 underlying decision is contrary to law, [M IO 6-11] and we remain unpersuaded that 10 the State’s interest is sufficiently compelling to entitle it to immediate appellate 11 review. [MIO 11-14] 12
{6} In closing, we note the State’s sugges tion that the instant appeal should be 13 entertained on grounds the decision would otherwise be effectively unreviewable. 14 [MIO 10] As we observed in the notice of proposed summary disposition, [CN 3] the 15 State could have either applied for interl ocutory appeal, or refused to comply, been 16 held in contempt, and appeal ed as of right thereafter. King v. Allstate Ins. Co. , 2004- 17 NMCA-031, ¶ 19, 135 N.M. 206, 86 P.3d 631 (“ A party who seeks to challenge an 18 order granting a motion to compel discovery . . . can either apply for an interlocutory 195 appeal or refuse to comply, be held in c ontempt and file an appeal as of right from 1 both the contempt judgment and the unde rlying discovery order on which the 2 contempt was based.”). Neither of thes e options having been pursued, we remain 3 unpersuaded that further consideration on the merits is warranted. 4
{7} Accordingly, for the reasons statedabove and in the notice of proposed 5 summary disposition, we dismiss. 6
{8} IT IS SO ORDERED. 7

_______________________________ 8 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 9

WE CONCUR: 10

____________________________ 11 DANIEL J. GALLEGOS, Judge 12

____________________________ 13 JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Judge 14