1 IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 O pin ionN um

be r :

____

____ ____ __ 3 Fi lin g D at e: A ugus t 31 , 201 7 4 N O. A -1 -C A -3 5307 5 STATE OF NEW MEXI CO, 6 Pl ai nti ff

-Appe llant, 7 v

. 8 DA MON LEWIS, 9 De fendant-Appellee. 10 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF BER NA LILLO C OUN TY 11 C hr ist in a P . A rg yr es , D ist ri ctJu dg e 12 He ctor H . B alderas, Attorney Ge neral 13 Santa Fe , N M 14 John Kloss, A ssistant Attorney Ge neral 15 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 16 fo r Appe llant 17 L. He len Bennett, P .C. 18 L

. H el enBe nne tt 19 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 20 for Appellee1 OPIN ION

2 VA RGA S, Judge. 3 { 1} T he S ta te a sks us t o r ev er se the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s sanc tio n of dis m is sa l w ith 4 pr ej udi ce of

D ef en da nt’ s sh opl if

tin g c ha rg es r es ult ing f

ro m the S ta te ’ s f

ai lur e to 5 tim ely turn over recordings of witness identification interviews. Beca use the district 6 co urt f ai le d to e xpl ai n th e m an ne r in w hic h it c onsi de re d c ulp ab ili ty , pr ej udi ce , a nd 7 l e s s e r s a n c t i o n s , a s r e q u i r e db y State v. H arper , 2011 -N MS C- 044, 150 N

. M. 745 , 266 8 P. 3d 2 5, an d c lari fi ed

in State v. Le M

ier , 2017 -N MS C- 017, 394 P. 3d 959, w e re ve rs e 9 the de ci sio n of

the dis tr ic t c ourt and r em an d th e ca se f or f urthe r co nsi de ra tio n of

the 10 pr opr ie ty

of the sanc tio n inli ght

of the se f ac tor s. 11 I. BACKGRO UND 12 { 2} D ef

en da nt D am on L ew is, was ind ic te d f or sho pli ft ing a nd c onsp ir ac y to 13 comm i t s h o p lifting on June 25, 2014 . T he district court issued a scheduling o rder 14 re qui ri ng tha t the part ie s c om ple te a ll w itn es s in te rv ie w s by Jul y 17, 201 5, a nd f

ile 15 all pre-tr ial m otion s, exclud ing m otion s in lim ine, by July 28, 2 015. The dist rict court 16 se t the doc ke t c al l f

or O ct ob er 26 , 2 015, a nd tri al on a tr ai lin g do ck et

be gin nin g 17 N ove m

be r 2, 201 5. 18 { 3} T h r e e m o n t h s a f t e r t h e d e a d l i n e t o f

i l e p r e - t r i a l m o t i o n s , D e f e n d a n tf i le d a 19 m oti on t o di sm iss the ca se or supp re ss the pho to arr ay ide nti fi ca tio ns. I n hi s m oti on,2

1 D ef e n d a n ta s s e rt e dt h a tt h e p o l i c e f a i l e dt o r e c o r dt h e p h o t o a rr a y i d e n t i f i c at ion s 2 contrary

to the poli ce departm ent’ s standard operating procedu res, rea sonin g that 3 be ca use the S ta te ha d no t pr oduc ed a ny re co rd ing dur ing dis co ve ry a s r equir ed

by 4 Rule 5-501 NMRA , it m ust have failed to collect and preserve that evidence. 5 { 4} O n th e fi rst da y of tr ia l, the dis tr ic t c ourt a ddr es se d D ef en da nt’ s m oti on t o 6 dis m iss , not ing it w as unt im el y . D ef en se co unse l advis ed

the c ourt tha t, sin ce f

ili ng 7 his m oti on, the St at e ha d pr ovi de d the re co rd ing s he pr es um ed w er e los t, de str oy ed , 8 or non ex is te nt

. I n r es pons e, the S ta te poi nte d to aspe ed le tte r iss ue d to D ef

en da nt, 9 ex pla ini ng tha t the r ec or din gs h ad be en ch ec ke d into evi de nc e fo r as lon g as the c as e 10 had been pendin g and we re therefore available to Defe ndant. The State c onceded that 11 it ha d “ de fi nit el y vio la te d” the r ule r equir ing it

to pr ovi de c opi es of

audi o, vid eo , a nd 12 au dio -v ide o r ec or din gs m ad e by law en fo rcem en t o ffi cers , see LR2- 40 0.1 (D) NMRA, 13 but argued that the court had discretion u nder Harper to im pose a lesser sanction than 14 di sm is sa l o r su pp res si on . See 201 1-NMSC -0 44. N oti ng i ts o bli ga tio n to im pose 15 sanctions , and after r ej ecting m onetary sanctions as a rem ed y, t h e d i strict court 16 dis m iss ed

the ca se w ith pr ej udi ce , ci tin g the St at e’ s c ont inu ing duty to dis cl ose a nd 17 its “ bla tant v iol at ionof the dis co ve ry

r ule s. ” T he S ta te appe al ed

.3

1 II. DISC US SION 2 { 5} W e re vie w the di st ric t cour t’ s im posi tio n of

sanc tio ns f

or a n a buse of 3 di sc ret io n. Le M

ier , 201 7-NMS C-017, ¶ 22. T o dism iss Defe ndant’s ca se, the district 4 court relied on LR 2-400.1. T he rule applies t o ca s es filed in the Second Judicial 5 D istri ct

Co urt on or be fo re Jun e 30, 201 4. T he r ule s of c ri m ina l pr oc ed

ur e an d 6 ex ist ing ca se law ap ply to the se ca se s “ onl y to the ex te nt the y do n ot c onf

lic t” w ith 7 the spe ci al c al en da r ru le

. L R2 -4 00. 1( A ), (B ). T he ru le re qui re s the part ie s to dis cl ose 8 “ al l dis co ve ry de sc ri be d in Ru le 5- 501( A )( 1) -( 6) N MR A ” as w el l as th e “ phon e 9 num bers and e-m ail addresses of all w i t nesses if available, copies of docum entary 10 ev ide nc e an d audi o, vid eo , a nd au di o- vid eo r ec or din gs m ad e by law e nf or ce m en t 11 of fi ce rs [, ] ” an d to pr ovi de “ a ‘ spe ed le tte r’ auth or iz ing the de fe ndant t o e xa m ine 12 phy sical evidence in the possess ion of the [s] tate. ” L R2-400.1(D) . T hese disclosu res 13 m ust be m ade w ithin ten day s of the eff ective date of the r

ule, or no later

than 1 4 Fe b r u a ry 1 2 , 2 0 1 5 , i f

n o ta l r e a d y

d i s c l o s e d

. L R 2

- 4 0 0

. 1 ( D )

. T h e p a rt i e s a r e a lso 1 5 s ub je c tt o “ ac o n t i n u i n g du t y t o d i s c l o s e a d d i t i o n a l i n f o rmat i o n w i t h i n f

i v e ( 5 ) d a ys 16 of r ec ei pt o f suc h in fo rm at ion

. ” L R2 -4 00. 1( D )( 2)

. S houl d e ith er party f ai l t o c om ply 17 w iththe dis co ve ry

r equir em en ts se t forth in the ru le , the dis tr ic t cour t “ sha ll im

pose 18 sanctions , which m ay include dism issal of the case with or without p rej udice, 19 prohibi ting th e party from calling a witness or introducing evid ence, m onetary4

1 sa nc tio ns . . . , or

a ny oth er sanc tio n de em ed

appr opr ia te by

the c ourt. ” L R2

- 2 400. 1( D )( 4)

. F urthe r, w he re aparty “ fa ils to co m

pl y w itha ny

pr ovi sio n of

the 3 sc he dul ing or de r, the c ourt sh al l i m pose sanc tio ns a s th e co urt de te rm ine s is 4 ap pr op ria te in th e ci rcu m st an ces [.]” LR2-4 00 .1(J )(4 ). 5 { 6} In Harper , our S uprem e Court held that “ exclusion of w itnesses requir es an 6 int en tio na l vi ola tio n of ac ourt or de r, pr ej udice t o th e oppo sin g party , a nd 7 consideration o f less severe sanctions[.] ” 2011-NMSC-044, ¶ 2. The Harper court 8 poin ted out th at dism issal and witness exclus i o n are extrem e sanctions, to be used 9 on ly in ex cep ti on al cas es . Id

. ¶¶ 16, 21. O ur Suprem e Court later soug ht to “ clarify 10 the cir cu m stanc es und er w hic h ac ourt m ay

pe rm iss ibl y

e xc lud e a w itn es s a s a 11 discovery

sanction.” Le M

ier , 2017 -N MS C- 017, ¶

1. A cc or din g to Le M

ier , “ Harper 12 did no t establish a rigid and m echanical analy tic fram ew ork . .

. so rigoro u s that 13 courts m ay im

pose w itness exclusi on on ly in response to d iscovery

violatio ns that are 14 egregious, blatant, and an affr ont to their authority .” Le M ier , 2017 -N MS C- 017, ¶

16. 15 T he Co urt f

urth er exp la ine d th at

adis tr ic t c ourt “ m

ust e va lua te the c onsi de ra tio ns 16 ide nti fi ed

in Harper

—c ulp ab ili ty , pr ej udi ce , an d le sse r sa nc tio ns— w hen dec idi ng 17 w he the r to e xc lud e a w itnes s and m ust e xpl ai n th ei r de ci sio n to e xc lud e or not 18 ex cl ude aw itn es s w ith in the f ram ew ork art ic ula te d in Harper [

. ] ” Le M ier , 201 7- 19 N MS C- 017, ¶ 20. D es pit e thi s obl iga tio n, the dis tr ic t c ourt c ont inu es to poss es s th e5

1 “ broad discretionary

authority t o decide w hat sanction to im pose when a discovery 2 order is violated.” Id

. ¶ 22. T hus, a cc or din g to Le M ier , “ it is not the ca se tha t w itn es s 3 exclusion is ju s t ified only if all of the Harper

c onsi de ra tio ns w ei gh i n f av or of 4 ex cl u s i o n .” Le M

ier , 201 7- N MS C- 017, ¶

20. I nst ea d, the dis tr ic t c ourt m ay use 5 supp re ssi on as a sa nc tio n f or f ai lur e to c om

ply w ithadis co ve ry

or de r “ to m ai nta in 6 the int eg ri ty

a nd s ch ed

ule of the c ourt e ve n thou gh th e defe ndant m ay not be 7 prej udiced.” Id

. (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d)

. 8 { 7} U sin g th is f

ram ew ork to gui de it s asse ssm en t of the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s di sc re tio n 9 in im posin g sanctions , the Le M ier court then a ssessed the H arpe r fact or s. Le M

ier , 10 2017 -N MSC- 017, ¶¶ 24-29. L ooki ng first to the culpabi lity fac tor, th e Court noted 11 tha t the f

ac ts o f tha t c as e w er e pa rt ic ularl y c om pe lli ng, w iththe sta te f

la gr an tly 12 dis re ga rd ing m

ult ipl e ex te nsi ons an d w ar nin gs f ro m the di str ic t c ourt. Co nc lud ing 13 tha t the sta te ’ s co nduc t w as suf fi ci en tly cu lpa

ble to j ust if

y e xc lus ion , the Co urt a lso 14 not ed tha t “ a sin gle vio la tio n of adis co ve ry or de r m ay suf fi ce to supp ort a

f ind ing of 15 culpabilit y .” Id

. ¶ 24. T he Court sim ilarly found no abuse of discretion in the dis trict 16 co urt’ s prejud ice de te rm ina tio n, r ea soni ng tha t “ [w ] he n ac ourt or de rs apa rty to 17 provide dis covery

within a given tim e fr am e, failure to com ply with that order c auses 18 pr ejud ic e b ot h t o t he op po si ng pa rty and to th e co ur t.”Id

. ¶ 25. T he pr ej udi ce to the 19 de fe ndant, a cc or din g to th e Co ur t, wa s th at his “ da y in co urt” ha d be enne ed le ssl y6

1 delay ed and that he had bee n subjected to “ the poss ibilityof trial by surprise[. ] ” Id

. 2 T h e C o u rte x p l a i n e d t h a t t h e d i s t r i c tc o u rth a db e e n p r e j u d i c e db y w a s t i n g i t s t i me 3 and disrupt ing its docket to the detrim ent of other parties and the en t i re ju s t i ce 4 syste m . Id

. ¶ 26. F inally , the C ourt conclud ed that the sanction im posed bythe district 5 court had been the least s evere sanction available, noti ng that the district court “ wa s 6 not obl iga te d to co nsi de r ev er y co nc ei vable le sse r sa nc tio n bef or e im posi ng w itn es s 7 exclusion .” Id

. ¶ 27. I nst ea d, the dis tr ic t cour t sat isf ie d its bur de n by “ fa shi on[ ing ] the 8 least severe sanction th at best fit the situati o n an d wh ich accom plish ed the desired 9 result.” Id

. The Court reasoned that the progressive sanction s im posed by the district 10 co urt w er e ev ide nc e tha t the dis tr ic t c our t i m pose d th e le as t se ve re sanc tio n 11 ap pr op ria te to th e c i r c u ms ta nc es . Id

. ¶ 28. T he Co urt f

urthe r co ndon ed

w itn es s 12 ex cl usi on a s asanc tio n intha t ca se be ca use it “ en sur ed

tha t the c ourt’ s auth or ity to 13 effi ci en tl y

ad m in is te r th e la w an d ens ur e co m pl ia nc e wit h it s ord ers was v in di cat ed .” 14 Id

. ¶ 29. 15 { 8} Be ca

use the r ule s of cr im ina l proc ed

ur e and ex ist ing c as e law appl y to thi s c as e 16 “ onl y to the e xte nt the y

do n ot c onf

lic t” w iththe spe ci al c al en da r ru le , L R2

- 17 400. 1( A ), (B ), w e m

ust de te rm ine w he the r a co nf lic t e xis ts. Whil e the langua ge of the 18 ru le m ak es sanc tio ns m an da tor y f or vio la tio ns o f dis co ve ry obl iga tio ns and 19 sc he dul ing or de r de ad lin es , it le av es the de ci sio n of the ty pe of sanc tio n to im

pose to7

1 the dis cr et ionof

the dis tri ct co urt. T he r ule pr ovi de s no gui da nc e as to the 2 considerations to be m ade when assessing sanctions . O ur Suprem e Court, however, 3 ha s se t ou t gu ide lin es f or a sse ssi ng s an ct ion s in Harper a nd Le Mier

. Le M

ier ’s 4 re qui re m en ts tha t a co urt m ust both e va lua te the c onsi de ra tio ns i de nti fi ed in Harper 5 and explain its decision wi t h in the Harper f ram ew ork inde te rm ini ng w ha t ty pe of 6 sa nc tio n to im

pose , m er el ysup ple m en t the r ule w ith out

c onf lic tin g w ithit

. A s no 7 co nf lic t e xis ts betwe en the r

ule a nd e sta

bli she d pr ec ed en t, w e co nti nue to re ly on 8 Harper ’s u se of

c ulp ab ili ty , pr ej udi ce , a nd l es se r sa nc tio ns a s a ppr opr ia te too ls f

or 9 ev al ua tin g th e ty

pe of sanc tio n th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt m ay

im pose . F urthe r, tho ugh 10 Harper

a nd Le M

ier a ddr es s adis tr ic t c ourt’ s e xc lus ion of aw itn es s a s asanc tio n, 11 ra the r than th e dis m iss al w ithpr ej udi ce e m plo y ed in this c as e, both di sm iss al a nd 12 wit ne ss ex cl us io n c on st it ut e “ ex tre m e” s an ct io ns . See H arper , 201 1- N MS C- 044, 13 ¶¶ 16, 21. T he co nsi de ra tio ns re le va nt t o bo th s an ct ion s are sim ilar, a nd w e co nc lud e 14 it is appropriate to applythe Harper a nd Le M

ier co ns id erat io ns he re. 15 { 9} T he St at e co nc ed es tha t it vio la te d its ini tia l dis cl osur e obl iga tio ns u nde r L R2

- 16 400. 1. T he r

ule r equir es tha t “ co pie s of doc um en tary ev ide nc e an d audi o, vid eo , a nd 17 au dio -v ide o r ec or din gs” be pr ov id ed withinte n day s of F eb ru ar y 2, 201 5, if

not 18 al re ady

dis cl ose d. L R2 -4 00. 1( D ). T he S ta te a lso ha d a“ co nti nui ng duty to d isc los e 19 additio nal inform ation to [the defendant] within five (5) day s of rec eipt of such8

1 inf orm at ion

. ” L R2- 400. 1( D )( 2)

. H er e, the r ec or din gs w er e not pr ovi de d to D ef

en da nt 2 unt il N ove m

be r 16 o r 17, 201 5, j ust

aday or so be fo re tr ia l w as to be gina nd w el l 3 outsi de of any

disclosu re per iod prov ided for by the rule. 4 { 10} W e disagree with the State’ s argum ent that provid ing th e speed letter satisfied 5 the requirem ents of LR 2-400.1(D) . T he rule r eq u i re s the parties to provid e “ copies 6 of docum entary

evidence and audio, video, and audio-video recordings m ade by law 7 en fo rcem en t o ffi cers or o th ers , and , w he re ne ce ssary , a ‘ spe ed le tte r’ auth or iz ing the 8 de fe ndant to ex am ine phy sic al ev ide nc e in the poss es sio n of the Stat e.” L R2

- 9 400. 1( D ) (e m

pha sis ad de d)

. T he re qui re m en ts o f L R2 -4 00. 1( D ) w er e not sa tis fi ed by 10 the pr ov is ionof

aspe ed le tte r be ca

use the langua ge of

the r ule r equir es pr oduc tio n 11 of p hy sical co pies of d ocum entary and audio-vis ual evidence in additio n to a speed 12 le tt er. Se e id. T he St at e’ s fa ilure to pr ovi de the re co rd ing s w as a cl ear vio la tio n of the 13 ru le , r eg ar dle ss o f whe th er D ef en da nt w as giv enaspe ed le tte r. T he pla in l an gua ge 14 of the ru le ind ic at es tha t a spe ed le tte r is not int en de d to se rv e as a n a lte rn at ive to the 15 State’ s oblig ation to p roduce act u al copies of the docum entary and audio-vis ual 16 ev id en ce as req ui red by the rul e. 17 { 11} The S tate having violated its discovery oblig ations set forth in LR2-400.1(D ), 18 the dis tr ic t c ourt w as r equir ed to im pose sanc tio ns. T hose sa nc tio ns ar e subj ec t t o th e 19 co nsi de ra tio ns e nunc ia te d in Harper a nd Le M

ier

. Le M ier m akes it clear

that, e ven9

1 when the special calendar rule requires im posit ion of sanctions , the district c o urt 2 “ m ust e va lua te

. . . c ulp ab ili ty , pr ej udi ce, and le sse r sa nc tio ns[ , ] ” as e nunc ia te d in 3 Harper

. Le M

ier , 2017-NMS C-017, ¶ 20. Upon weighing those facto rs, the district 4 co urt the n ha s dis cr et ion to de ci de w hic h sa nc tio n to im pose , but ha s an o bl iga tio n 5 to e xpl ai n th e re as ons fo r its de ci sio n. I d. 6 { 12} In this ins tance, the district c ourt’ s assessm ent of the Harper f ac tor s is vir

tua lly 7 no ne xi st en t. Le M

ier requir es the dis tr ic t c ourt t o no t on ly w ei gh the de gr ee of 8 cu lpa bil ity a nd e xte nt o f pr ej udi ce , but a lso e xpl ai n it s de ci sion r eg ar din g 9 ap pli ca bil ity of le sse r sa nc tio ns on the r ec or d. I n th is c as e, w e do n ot h av e the be ne fi t 10 of lookin g at the sanction i m p o s ed through the lens of a thorough rec ord that 11 indicates a car eful consideration of the Harper fa ct or s. In ste ad , w e are l eft to 1 2 de te rm i n e w h e t h e r t h e d i s t r i c t c o u rt ab u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n b y a rr i v i n g a t the m ost 13 ex tr em e sa nc tio n a va il ab le in re spon se to anappare ntl y unr em ar kable f ac t pa tte rn . 14 T houg h th e dis tr ic t c ourt w as unque sti ona bly a w ar e of its obl iga tio n to c onsi de r the 15 Harper

f ac tor s, nothin g inthe r ec or d r ev ea ls the dis tr ic t co urt’ s re as ons fo r im posi ng 16 a sanction of dism issal with prej udice or the fac ts on which the dist rict c o urt based 17 its de ci sio n. T he li m ite d r ec or d inthi s c as e is i na de qua te to de te rm ine w he the r the 18 dis tr ic t c ourt ex erci sed du e care in m ak ing it s de ci sio n to im pose ase ve re sanc tio n 19 co ntr ar

y to Le M ie r’ s spe ci fi c re qui rem en t tha t a dis tr ic t c ourt “ m ust

e xp lai n [ its ]10

1 d ec i s i o n [. ] 20 1 7 -N M SC -0 1 7 , ¶2 0 (e m p h as i s ad d ed ). As s u ch , t h e d i s t r i ct co u rt ’s 2 im posit ion of its sanction—dis m issal w ith pre j udice—cannot prese ntly be evaluated 3 or j ustified bythis Court, and we m ust reverse and re m and the m atter to the district 4 co urt f or f urthe r pr oc ee din gs. 5 { 13} To illu str at e the ina de qua cy of the r ec or d m ad e in this c as e, w e dis cu ss the 6 Harper f a c t o r s

— a s mo d i f

i e db y Le M

ier —and the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s a sse ssm en t of e ac h, 7 be gi nn in g wi th cu lp ab il it y . Le M ier m oves courts aw ay from

the Harper

r equir em en t 8 t h a t b a d f

a i t h o r i n t r a n s i g e n c e e x i s tp r i o r t o a s s e s s i n g s a n c t i o n s a g a i n s tap a rt y. 9 Harper , 2 0 1 1

- N M S C

- 0 4 4 , ¶ 1 7

. I n Le Mier , our

S upr em e Co urt e m

pha siz ed the 10 m andatory

nature of a court’ s orders, stating that “ [p] arties m ust o b ey discovery 11 or de rs ” an d e xpl ai nin g th at “ [o ] ur sy ste m of j ust ic e w oul d be ne ith er or de rl y nor 12 effi ci en t” if

part ie s w er e not

he ld t o c om

ply w iththo se or de rs . 201 7- N MS C- 017, 13 ¶ 24. T houg h Le M

ier de al t w ith m

ult ipl e vio la tio ns, it ac know le dge d th at “ a sin gle 1 4 v i o l at i o n o f a d i s co v er y o rd erm ay s u ff i ce t o s up p o r t a f

i n d i n g o f c u l p ab i l i t y[,]” 15 ac know le dgi ng a

r eb utt ab le pr es um

pti on o f cu lpa

bil ity w he n adis co ve ry

or de r is 16 vi ol at ed

. Id

. T he de gr ee of

c ulp ab ili ty , how ev er , is a fac t-spec if ic inquir y f or the 17 dis tr ic t co urt t o c onsi de r in a sse ssi ng s an ct ion s a ga ins t a party . I t i s th ro ugh thi s 18 consi d er at i o n o f degree that bad faith or intransigence now fac tors into a district11

1 co ur t’s calcu la ti on of a pp ro pr ia te san ct io ns . Se e id. ¶ 17. H owever , the district court 2 m ade no such assessm ent here. 3 { 14} As t o p reju di ce, Le M ier ex pla ins tha t “ [w ] he n ac ourt or de rs aparty to pr ovi de 4 d i s co v er y within a given tim e fr am e, failure to com ply with that order c auses 5 prej udice both to the oppo sing party and to the court.” Id

. ¶ 25. T hus, under Le M

ier , 6 e v e ry d i s c o v e ry o r d e r v i o l a t i o n g i v e s r i s e t o s o m e d e g r e e o f p r e j u d i c e . U nli ke the 7 ci rc um stanc es in Le M ier , thi s c as e inv olv ed no ad dit ion al e xte nsi ons an d he ar ing s 8 regarding discovery

issues requiring the district cou rt to resolve the issu e or ef fect 9 co m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e d i s c o v e ry o r d e r . I n s t e a d , a f t e r t h e d e a d l i n e f

o r d i s co ve ry

a nd 10 pr e- tr ia l m oti ons ha d e xpi re d, D ef en da nt f ile d am oti on to d ism iss the c as e or 11 supp ress the photo arr ay identification w hen he rea lized, a fewwe eks before tria l, that 12 the S ta te ha d no t pr oduced a video of the ide nti fi ca tio n. N ow he re in the r ec or d, 13 ho wev er, d id th e d is tri ctco ur t ad dr es s p reju di ce. 14 { 15} Fi na lly , w e loo k at w he the r the dis tr ic t c ourt c onsi de re d le sse r sa nc tio ns p ri or 15 to di sm is si ng th e cas e wit h p reju di ce. Le M ier rem inds u s that “ the district court was 16 not obl iga te d to c onsi de r ev er y c onc ei vable le sse r sa nc ti on” be fo re im posi ng 17 di sm is sa l wi th pre

jud ic e. Id

. ¶ 27. It wa s only required to f ashion the least s ev ere 18 sa nc ti o n th atit fel t fi t t he si tu at io n a nd ach ie ve d t he de si red res ul t. Id

. The district 19 court’ s consid eration of l esser sanctio ns in this case was cursory at b est. T he district12

1 court began by

rec iting the sanctions li sted in the rule, “ which m ay include dism issal 2 of the ca se w ith or w ith out pr ej udi ce , pr ohi bit ing the party f ro m c al lin g w itn es se s or 3 intr o du ci n g ev i d en ce , [ an d ] m o n et ar y s an ct i o ns[.] ” L R2-400.1(D) (4). The court noted 4 tha t “ m one tary

sanc tio ns are n’ t do ing a nythi ng” a nd, a ft er r ec iti ng l an gua ge f

ro m the 5 rule regar ding both p arties’ duty to disclose, dism issed the case w ith prejudice. Ther e 6 w as no d isc uss io n of

w itn es s or

e vid en ce e xc lus ion , w hic h ha d be enr eque ste d by 7 D ef en da nt i n th e al te rn at ive , nor w as the re a ny

dis cu ssion o f dis m iss al w ith out 8 pr ej ud ic e. T he dis tr ic t c ourt m ad e no o the r sta te m en ts o n th e re co rd e xpl ai nin g it s 9 reasons for choosin g the extrem e sanction im posed—d ism issal with prej udice—over 10 an y ot he r le ss er s an ct io n. 11 { 16} D es pit e the br oa d di sc re tio n Le Mi er pr ovi de s di str ic t c ourts whe n im posi ng 12 sa nc tio ns, w e re m ind our dis tr ic t co urts tha t any de ci sio n to im

pose se ve re sanc tio ns 1 3 re qui re s a n a d e q u a t e l y d e v e l o p e dr e c o r dt h a ta n ap p e l l a t e c o u rtc a n s ub s t a n t i v el y 14 re vie w . Whil e w e m ay ha ve e xpr es se d so m e co nc er n w ith the se ve ri ty

of the sanc tio n 15 im pose d in the pr es en t ca se —c ir cu m stanc es tha t ap pe ar m uc h le ss e gr eg iou s th anthe 16 ci rc um stanc es a ddr es se d in Le M ier —this doe s no t pr ec lud e the pos sib ili ty tha t the 17 district court could have developed an adequate record f indin g the State culpable, 18 pe rc ei vi ng suf

fi ci en t pr ej udi ce to D ef

en da nt o r the c ourt, a nd d et er m ini ng tha t the 19 discovery violatio n wa s sufficiently egregious to warrant a dism issal with prej udice13

1 ra the r than the le sse r sa nc tio n r eque ste d by D ef en da nt. W e ar e al so f

ull y a w ar e of our 2 dutyto view the evidence an d all inference s in the ligh t m ost favorable to the district 3 co ur t’s d eci si on , see Le Mier , 2017-NMS C-017, ¶ 22, but w ithou t an adequate rec ord 4 ex pla ini ng the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s r uli ng and r ea soni ng, w e cannot pr ope rl y pe rf orm our 5 ro le a s an ap pe lla te c ourt. I n th is c as e, the dis tr ic t c ourt si m ply f ai le d to sa tis fy

the 6 re qui re m en t tha t i t de ve lop an ad equa te r ec or d and e xpl ai n it s r ea sons f or im posi ng 7 suc h ase ve re sanc tio n ov er oth er a va ila ble a lte rn at ive s. W e m ak e no d et er m ina tio n 8 re g ar d i n g wh et h erd i s m i s s al wi t h p re ju d i ce wa s t h e p ro p er s an ct i o n i n t h i s ca s e. We 9 the re fo re r ev er se the dis tr ic t cour t’ s sanc tio n of di sm iss al w ithpr ej udi ce a nd r em an d 10 fo r furthe r co nsi de ra tio n inli ght of thi s op ini on. 11 { 17} Fi n a l l y , t h e S t a t e a l s o a r g u e s o n ap p e a l t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u rt e rre d in 12 co nsi de ri ng and r

uli ng o n D ef

en da nt’ s un tim el y

m oti on t o di sm iss

. I n m ak ing thi s 13 ar gum en t, the S ta te se ek s a ru lin g th at the dis tr ic t c ourt c an not

im pose asanc tio n of 14 dis m iss al f

or dis co ve ry vio la tio ns onc e the m oti ons de ad lin e ha s pa sse d. N oth ing in 15 the langua ge of L R2 -4 00. 1 suppor ts suc h an outc om e. T o r ea d L R2 -4 00. 1 a s th e St at e 16 urges, leads to an ill ogical result allowing the State to disregard the discovery 17 re qui re m en ts o f L R2 -4 00. 1, tur n th ing s over

out sid e the dis co ve ry

de ad lin e, a rg ue 18 De fendant cannot m ove for dism issal a s a sanction because the m otion s deadline has 19 ru n, an d t he reb y

av oi d a ny rep e r c u s s i o n s fo r it s d is co ve ry vi ol at io ns . See State v.14

1 H ouse , 2001 -N MCA -011, ¶ 18, 130 N .M. 418, 25 P .3d 257 (recognizing th at w hen 2 ar gum en ts a

ppe ar ill ogi ca l to this Cou rt the y can be r ej ec te d ontha t ba sis ). W e do n ot 3 read the r

ule to lim it the district court in su ch a m anner, particularly wher e the local 4 ru le co nta ins no langua ge to sugg es t suc h an ill ogi ca l ap pli ca tio n an d re su lt would 5 be appropriate. 6 III. CON CLU SION 7 { 18} W e re ve rs e and re m an d base d onthe la ck of sta te d su ppor t f or the dis m iss al

. 8 { 19} IT IS S O ORDERE D.

9 10 JU LI E J . V A R GA S, Ju dg e 11 WE CO NCUR:

12 13 MIC HAE L E. VIGIL, Judge

14 15 TIMOT HY L. GAR CIA , Jud ge