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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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 from 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-Appellee, 3

v. NO. 35,240 4 JAVIER CHAVEZ, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF VALENCIA COUNTY 7 Cindy M. Mercer, District Judge 8 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender 12 Nina Lalevic 13 Santa Fe, NM 14 for Appellant 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 VANZI, Chief Judge. 17 {1} Defendant appeals his conviction for trafficking, contrary to NMSA 1978, 18 Section 30-31-20 (2006). We issued a Notice of Proposed Summary Disposition 192 proposing to affirm. Defendant has responded with a timely memorandum in 1 opposition, which we have duly considered. Because we remain unpersuaded that our 2 initial proposed disposition was incorrect, we affirm. 3 {2} Defendant first continues to argue that the district court erred in denying his 4 motion in limine to exclude evidence of hi s involvement in a prior uncharged drug 5 transaction. [MIO 3-4] The district court ruled that if Defendant testified at trial, 6 evidence of the prior drug transaction woul d be admissible for impeachment purposes. 7 [MIO 2-3] Defendant argues that this prevented him from tes tifying, and he was 8 therefore unable to establish his defense of entrapment. [MIO 3] “We review the 9 district court’s evidentiary ruli ng for an abuse of discretion.” State v. Garnenez , 2015- 10 NMCA-022, ¶ 29, 344 P.3d 1054. “An abuse of discretion occurs when the ruling is 11 clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances of the case.” State 12 v. Moreland, 2008-NMSC-031, ¶ 9, 144 N.M. 192, 185 P.3d 363 (internal quotation 13 marks and citation omitted). 14 {3} We find no abuse of discretion in the de nial of Defendant’s motion in limine. 15 Evidence of a prior instance of methamphetamine trafficking could be relevant and 16 admissible under Rule 11-404(B) NMRA depending on the substance of Defendant’s 17 testimony. See, e.g. , State v. Attaway , 1992-NMCA-043, ¶¶ 20-21, 114 N.M. 83, 835 18 P.2d 81 (finding evidence of a prior uncharged instance of drug dealings to be relevant 19 to the defendant’s knowledge and ability to identify methamphetamine where the 203 defendant denied knowledge or control of the substance); see also Rule 11-404(B) 1 (stating that evidence a crime or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s 2 character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance 3 with the character but that such evidence may be admissible for another purpose, 4 “such as proving motive, opportunity, intent , preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, 5 absence of mistake, or lack of accident”). In this case, Defendant states that he sought 6 to establish that he was entrapped. [MIO3] Evidence of a prior drug sale could be 7 relevant to the issue of subjective entrapme nt, and accordingly, the district court did 8 not abuse its discretion in denying the motion in limine. See State v. Dartez , 9 1998-NMCA-009, ¶ 32, 124 N.M. 455, 952 P. 2d 450 (noting that predisposition 10 evidence is relevant to the de fense of subjective entrapment). 11 {4} Additionally, Defendant ha s cited no authority to suggest that a criminal 12 defendant is not subject to impeachment should he testify. See State v. Godoy , 2012- 13 NMCA-084, ¶ 5, 284 P.3d 410 (“Where a party cites no authority to support an 14 argument, we may assume no such authority exists.”); In re Adoption of Doe , 15 1984-NMSC-024, ¶ 2, 100 N.M. 764, 676 P.2d 1329 (holding that an appellate court 16 will not consider an issue if no authority is cited in support of the issue). We therefore 17 reject this assertion of error. 18 {5} Defendant also maintains his argument that the district court erred in refusing 19 to order the State to reveal the identity of a confidential informant. [MIO4-6] We 204 review the denial of a motion to reveal th e identity of an informant for an abuse of 1 discretion. See State v. Rojo , 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 39, 126 N.M. 438, 971 P.2d 829. 2 “An abuse of discretion occurs when the ru ling is clearly against the logic and effect 3 of the facts and circumstances of the case.” Id. ¶ 41 (internal quotation marks and 4 citation omitted). 5 {6} Under Rule 11-510(B) NMRA, the State has the “privilege to refuse to disclose 6 the identity of an informer.” See Rule 11-510(A)(3) (defining an “informer” as “an 7 individual who has assisted with an inve stigation into a violation of the law”). 8 However, a criminal defendant can move the district court to compel disclosure of an 9 informer’s identity where the evidence suggests that the informer can provide 10 testimony that is relevant and helpful to th e defendant or that is necessary for a fair 11 determination of the guilt or innocence of the defendant. See Rule 11-510(D)(3). 12 “When such a motion is made, the court will provide . . . the state . . . an opportunity 13 to present evidence for an in camera review addressing whether the informant can, in 14 fact, supply such testimony.” Rule 11-510(D)(3)(a). 15 {7} The district court conducted an in camer a review of the police affidavit and 16 other materials and ruled that there was no information that w ould be relevant or 17 helpful to Defendant’s case. [DS 7-8, MIO 6] See Rule 11-510(D)(3)(a) (allowing for 18 in camera review of whether an informer c ould provide testimony that is relevant and 19 helpful to a criminal defendant or that is necessary for a fair determination of the guilt 205 or innocence of a criminal defendant). Nothing in the record provided to this Court 1 suggests that the district court abused its discretion in making this determination. See 2 Rule 11-510(D)(3)(d) (stating that any eviden ce tendered to the court for an in camera 3 review that is not ordered tobe disclosed shall be placedunder seal and preserved for 4 appellate review); see also State v. Jim , 1988-NMCA-092, ¶ 3, 107 N.M. 779, 765 5 P.2d 195 (“It is [the] defendant’s burden to bring up a record sufficient for review of 6 the issues he raises on appeal.”). 7 {8} In our notice of proposed summary dis position, we also noted that Defendant 8 did not specifically explain below how th e informant’s identity was necessary to 9 establish his defense of entrapment. [RP 41] Defendant responds in his memorandum 10 in opposition that he argued below that th e informant would testify that Defendant 11 was entrapped. [MIO 6] However, asDefendant acknowledge s in his memorandum 12 in opposition, the confidential information wa s not a witness to the drug transaction 13 for which he was charged. Under such circumstances, we s ee no basis to find that the 14 district court abused its discretion in refusing to disclose the informant’s identity. See 15 State v. Lovato , 1993-NMCA-163, ¶ 10, 117 N.M. 68, 868 P.2d 1293 (finding no 16 abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to disclose 17 an informant’s identity where the defendant did not specifically explain how 18 testimony from the informant would have aided his defense of entrapment); see also 19 State v. Chandler , 1995-NMCA-033, ¶¶ 19-25, 119 N.M. 727, 895 P.2d 249 206 (affirming the district court’s decision not to hold an in camera hearing regarding the 1 identity of a confidential info rmant where the district court concluded that the identity 2 of the informant was not relevant because the defendant was not charged with a crime 3 based upon the transaction witnessed by the informant, but rather on evidence found 4 during the execution of a search warrant). 5 {9} For these reasons, we affirm Defendant’s conviction. 6 {10} IT IS SO ORDERED. 7

__________________________________ 8 LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge 9 WE CONCUR: 10

_________________________________ 11 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge 12

_________________________________ 13 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 14