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 Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions.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-Appellee, 3 v. No. 33,556 4 ANICA TAFOYA, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 7 Ross C. Sanchez, District Judge 8 Gary K. King, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Law Offices of the Public Defender 12 Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender 13 Santa Fe, NM 14 Vicki Zelle, Assistant Public Defender 15 Albuquerque, NM 16 for Appellant 17 MEMORANDUM OPINION 18 HANISEE, Judge. 19
{1} Defendant has appealed from a convicti on for DWI. We previously issued a 20 notice of proposed summary disposition in which we proposed to affirm. Defendant 212 has filed a memorandum inopposition. After due cons ideration, we remain 1 unpersuaded. We therefore uphold the conviction. 2
{2} Because the pertinent background information and applicable principles have 3 previously been set forth, we will avoid unnecessary repetition here, and instead focus 4 on the content of the memorandum in opposition. 5
{3} First, Defendant renews her assertion that the trial court improperly limited the 6 scope of cross-examination. [MIO 18- 22] In the notice of proposed summary 7 disposition we expressed our general agreement with the district court’s thoughtful 8 handling of this issue. In her memo randum in opposition Defe ndant continues to 9 argue that she should have been permitted to cross-examine the officers about their 10 recollection of entirely separate, unrelated DWI investigations, for the purpose of 11 undermining their credibility. In this contex t, we review for abuse of discretion. See 12 generally State v. Brown , 1998-NMSC-037, ¶ 25, 126 N.M . 338, 969 P.2d 313 (noting 13 that abuse of discretion is the st andard of review for limitations on 14 cross-examination). We remain unpersuaded th at the trial court abused its discretion, 15 for a couple of reasons. First, the avenue of inquiry was not entirely foreclosed: the 16 trial court did permit defense counsel to que stion one of the officers about his limited 17 recollection of other DWI investigations . [RP 76] Second, Defendant was able to 18 impeach the officers by focusing on far more relevant questions about what they did 193 and did not recall about Defendant’s case. [RP 71-72, 75-77, 79-80] Because 1 Defendant was permitted to thoroughly and effectively cross-examine the witnesses 2 and to impeach their credib ility, we conclude that the few limitations imposed on the 3 scope of cross-examination were well within the trial court’s discretion. 4
{4} Defendant also renews her challenge to the admission of a copy of the BAT 5 card produced by the intoxilyzer in the courseof the DWI investigations and arrest. 6 [MIO 22-25] As we previously observed, Rule 11-1003 NMRA provides that 7 duplicates are admissible to th e same extent as original documents “unless a genuine 8 question is raised about the original’s auth enticity or the circumstances make it unfair 9 to admit the duplicate.” See also Gushwa v. Hunt (In re Estate of Gushwa) , 10 2008-NMSC-064, ¶ 24, 145 N.M. 286, 197 P.3d 1 (“Our rules . . . provide that a 11 duplicate, which includes a photocopy, may be admitted in lieu of an original to prove 12 the contents of a document unless there is a genuine question about the authenticity 13 of the original or unless it would be unfair to admit the duplicate.”). Although 14 Defendant suggests that Rule 11-1003 is inapplicable because the State failed to make 15 a showing that the original was unavailable, [MIO 23-24] Rule 11-1003 requires no 16 such showing. The authority upon which Defendant relies, Central Security & Alarm 17 Co. v. Mehler, 1996-NMCA-060, ¶ 32, 121 N.M. 840, 918 P.2d 1340, provides that 18

“ the best evidence rule . . . . deals primarily with the admissibility of copies of 194 documents when the original s are available.” (emphasi s added). Rule 11-1002 NMRA 1 is the best evidence rule. It requires the presentation of original documents to prove 2 content “unless these rules or a statute provides otherwise.” Id. Rule 11-1003 3 “provides otherwise,” by specifying that dupli cates are “admissible to the same extent 4 as the original unless a genuine question is raised about the original’s authenticity or 5 the circumstances make it unf air to admit the duplicate.” Id. 6
{5} With respect to the requirements of Rule 11-1003, Defe ndant acknowledges 7 that she has not raised any genuine ques tion about the original’s authenticity. [MIO 8 23] On this matter, the officer who administered the breath test testified that he 9 recognized the document and confirmed the date, the identity of the test subject, and 10 his own signature, and also testified that the document was an accurate representation 11 of the original, with no alterations. [RP 73-75, 81] See generally Rule 11-901(A), 12 (B)(1) NMRA (providing that evidence may be authenticated by producing “evidence 13 sufficient to support a finding that the ite m is what the proponent claims it is,” 14 including testimony that the evidence “is wh at it claimed to be”). Although Defendant 15 continues to challenge the officer’s indepe ndent recollection of the original document, 16 [MIO 24] the trial court wa s well within its discreti on in crediting the officer’s 17 testimony and concluding that authenticityhad been adequately established. See 18 generally State v. Sewell , 2009-NMSC-033, ¶ 23, 146 N.M. 428, 211 P.3d 885 195 (recognizing that the trial courts have the be st vantage from which to evaluate witness 1 credibility); State v. Mora , 1997-NMSC-060, ¶ 53, 124 N.M. 346, 950 P.2d 789 2 (reviewing a district court’s determination relative to the authen tication of evidence 3 for abuse of discretion), abrogated on other grounds recognized by Kersey v. Hatch , 4 2010-NMSC-020, ¶ 17, 148 N.M. 381, 237 P.3d 683. Nor has Defe ndant identified 5 any circumstance that could be said to have made the admission of the duplicate 6 unfair, such as illegibility. [MIO 23-25; RP 13] We therefore conclude that the 7 duplicate BAT card was properly admitted pursuant to Rule 11-1003, and reject 8 Defendant’s assertion of error. 9
{6} Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed summary 10 disposition and above, we affirm. 11
{7} IT IS SO ORDERED. 12

13 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 14 WE CONCUR: 15

16 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge 17

18 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 19