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: S ep te m

be r 2, 201 5 4 N O. 33, 473 5 STA TE OF NE W MEX ICO, 6 Pl ai nti ff

-Appe llant, 7 v

. 8 JUAN CARLOS ACO STA, 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 ha rl es W. Br own, D ist ri ctJu dg e 12 He ctor H . B alderas, Attorney Ge neral 13 San ta Fe, NM 14 Ja cque lin e R. Me din a, A ssi stant A tto rn ey G en er al 15 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 16 fo r Appe llant 17 Jorge A. Alvar ado, Chief Public De fender 18 B. Douglas W ood III, Assistant Appellate D efender 19 San ta Fe, NM 20 for Appellee1 OPIN ION

2 GAR CIA , Jud ge. 3 { 1} The S tate appeals the district court’ s order granting Def endant’ s m otion for a 4 ne wtr ia l. T his c as e pr es en ts the f oll ow ing iss ue s: (1 ) the St at e’ s ab ili ty to ap pe al the 5 g ra n to f a n ew t ri al b as ed up o n an ev i d e n t i a r y ru l i n g , ( 2 ) t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s 6 j ur isd ic tio n to gr an t a

m oti on f or ane w tr ia l on gr ound s th at w er e ra ise d su a spon te 7 m ore than ten day s after the verdict, and (3) whether th e g rant o f a new trial wa s an 8 ab u s e o f

d i s c r e t i o n u n d e r

t h e c i r c u ms t a n c e s o f

t h i s c a s e . We a f

f i rm. 9 BACKGRO UND 10 { 2} D ef

en da nt w as ind ic te d by

agr an d j ur

y on June 2, 201 1, f

or tr af fi ck ing a 11 controlle d s u b s t ance ( cocaine) by possess ion with intentto distrib ute, c hild abu se, 12 co nspi ra cy

to co m m it tr af fi ck ing a co ntr oll ed subs tanc e by pos se ssi on w ithint en t t o 13 distribu te, and poss ession o f drug paraphernalia. The ind i c tm e nt s t ated that the crim es 14 oc curr ed

on o r ab out

O ct obe r 19, 2010 , the date tha t the se ar chw ar rant w as e xe cu te d. 15 As part of the State’ s investi gation, three uncharged controlled buy s we re e xecuted 16 by of fi ce rs , w iththe a ssi stanc e of a co nf ide nti al inf

orm an t ( CI ), in the w ee ks p ri or to 17 the e xe cu tio n of

the se ar chw ar

rant. 18 { 3} O n Aug ust 19, 2013 , the da y be fo re tr ia l c om m en ce d, D ef

en da nt f ile d am oti on 19 in lim ine t o ex clude “ [a] ny inform ation provi ded by the [CI ] to the poli ce off icers2

1 regarding . .

. De fendant” on the ground s that it would be “ inadm issib le hearsay .” A 2 he ar ing w as he ld o n th e sa m e da y , dur ing w hic h de fe nse c ouns el a rg ue d th at if the 3 of fi ce rs te sti fi ed

a t tri al that a

CI tol d th em

that D ef en da nt w as se lli ng dr

ugs, an d th e 4 CI w as not goi ng to te sti fy at tr ia l, tha t te sti m ony w oul d pr es en t c onf ro nta tio n c lause 5 an d he ar say

pr obl em s. D ef

en se c ouns el not ed

that he w as not

c onc er ne d wi th the 6 officer s “ m en t i onin g that based on their investigatio n they decided to get a searc h 7 warrant[. ] ” T he State argued that “ the officer has a right to testify that [he] gave a [ CI] 8 m oney ,[ the CI] m et w ith . . . Def endant[,] [m ] oney that wa s provided to the [CI] wa s 9 gone , a nd there we re dr ugs in [ the CI ’ s] pos se ssi on, w hic h he obs er ve d [ as ha vin g 10 oc curr ed ] hand- to- ha nd. ” T he distr ic t c ourt r ep lie d th at if the of fi ce rs pe rs ona lly 11 observed the hand -to-hand exchange during the controlled buy s, they could testify

as 12 to those obs er

va tio ns; how ev er , be ca

use the CI w as un avai la

ble , the of

fi ce rs c oul d 13 not te sti fy a s to w ha t the CI tol d th em . U lti m at el y , the dis tr ic t c ourt a gr ee d to r es er ve 14 ruling on the m atter. 15 { 4} During the sam e m otion h ea ri n g, defe nse counsel m oved to exclud e as 16 inadm issibl e c har a c t e r e vi de nc e “ a ny

t e st i m on y

f r om a ny d e t e c t i ve t hat[ he o r

s he ] 17 ha d p r e v i o u s kn owl ed ge of my cli en t[, s uc h a s] saying we kn ew [Defe nd an t], we 18 knew him

we ll and he was up to no goo d[.] ” See Ru le 11- 404( A ) N MR A ( pr ovi din g 19 tha t e vid en ce of

ape rs on’ s c ha ra ct er

or c ha ra ct er

tr ai t i s in adm iss ibl e to p ro ve3

1 conform ity

therew ith on a p articular occasion). In respons e, the prosecutor indicated 2 tha t “ [h e did not ] an tic ipa te the of fi ce rs te sti fy ing to an ythi ng o uts ide of thi s c ur re nt 3 inv es tig at ion [, ]” spe ci fi ca lly statin g th at

the of fi ce rs w oul d no t t es tif

y about 4 De fendant’ s 1997 ar re s t fo r traf ficking. T he m orning o f trial, the State a gain asked 5 the district court whether the officer s could testify as t o their observations of the CI, 6 an d th e dis tr ic t c ourt a gr ee d. 7 { 5} Jur

y tr ia l be ga n on A ugus t 20, 201 3. T he S ta te a rg ue d init s op en ing state m en t 8 tha t S er ge an t C ar

pe nt e r o f th e A l b u q ue rque P oli ce D ep ar

tm en t w oul d te sti fy

that w ith 9 the as sis tanc e of

aCI , he obs er

ve d D ef en da nt t ak e pa rt

in thr ee c ontro lle d buy s. T he 10 St at e ex pla ine d th at

a ft er the thr ee c ontro lle d buy s, ase ar chw ar rant w as obt ai ne d f

or 11 anapa rtm en t thoug ht to be D ef en da nt’ s r es ide nc e. S er ge an t C ar pe nte r subs eque ntl y 1 2 te sti fi ed ab o u t t h e c o n t r o l l e d b u y s a n d t h e e v e n t s t h a t t r a n s p i r e d t h e d a y t h a t t he 13 se ar chw ar

rant w as e xe cu te d, a nd the de fe nse did not obj ec t t o th e te sti m ony

abo ut 14 the c ontro lle d buy s. T he the or y of the de fe nse w as tha t De fe ndant w as not ar es ide nt 15 of the apartm ent, that he happened to be in the area “by chance, ” and that there w as 16 no e vid en ce a ga ins t hi m a t a ll. 17 { 6} T he j ur

y f ound D ef en da nt g ui lt y

of tr af fi ck ing ac ontro lle d su

bst an ce by 18 poss ession with int ent to dist ribute, conspiracy to com m it traff i ck i n g a controlled 19 subs tanc e by

pos se ssi on w ithint en t to dis tr ibu te , ab use of a ch ild , a nd p oss es sio n of4

1 drug pa rap he rn al ia . Defen da n t f i l e d a ti m el y

m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l, see Ru le 5- 2 614(C) NMR

A (providin g that a m otion for a new tr ial based upon any grounds other 3 than ne w ly

dis co ve re d e vid en ce m

ust be m ad e w ith in te n day s of the ve rd ic t or

w ith in 4 the grant of a m otion for extension of tim e by the court within that ten-day period), 5 ci tin g in co nsi ste nt w itn es s te sti m ony an d im pr ope r pr ose cu tor ia l c om m en t duri ng 6 cl osi ng arg um en t. 7 { 7} At the m otion hearing, the district court granted De fendant’ s m otion for a new 8 tr ia l, but

it did so o n new gr ou nds tha t the c ourt r ai se d su a spon te

. F ir st, the 9 ind ic tm en t st at ed

that the c ha rg es ste m

m ed f ro m the ex ec uti on of a se ar chw ar rant o n 1 0 O c t o b e r

1 9 , 2 0 1 0 , b u tt h e S t a t e i n t r o du c e de v i d e n c e o f p r e v i o u s c o n t r o l l e db u ys 11 inv olv ing D ef

en da nt tha t w er e co nduc te d inthe w ee ks p ri or . S ec ond, the de fe nse did 12 not ha ve r ea sona

ble not ice of

the S ta te ’ s in te nt t o in tr oduc e thi s pr ior ba d a ct s 13 evidence, a s required by Rule 1 1-404(B). Third, this failure to give not ice prej udiced 14 D ef en da nt b ec au se it w as the onl y ev ide nc e ty ing D ef en da nt to the ap ar

tm en t, to the 15 co -d ef

en da nt, a nd t o th e dr

ugs fo und on the co -d ef

en da nt. T he ins tant a

ppe al e nsue d, 16 w iththe S ta te c ha lle ngi ng the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of ane wtr ia l. 17 DISC US SION 18 A . Th e St at e’ s A bi lit y t o A pp ea l t he Or de r Gr an ti ng a N ew Tr ial 19 { 8} Be ca

use it im pli cate s our au tho ri ty

to he ar thi s a ppe al , we tu rn fir st t o5

1 De fendant’ s contentio n that the State m ay not ap p ea l t h e district court’ s order 2 gr an tin g ane wtrial . I n supp ort of his c ont en tio n, D ef

en da nt r el ie s up on State v. 3 G rif fin , 1994-NMS C-061, ¶ 11, 117 N .M. 745, 877 P. 2d 55 1, for the proposi tion th at 4 the gr an t of a ne w tr ia l is ap pe al ab le by the S ta te onl y

w he n th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s r uli ng 5 is b as ed

on a de te rm in at ionof

pr ej udi ci al le ga l e rr or . D ef en da nt a sse rt s th at

the 6 di st rict c ourt’ s gr an t of ane wtr ia l w as pr em ise d onthe f ac t- ba se d a dm iss ionof 7 e v i d e n c e u n d e r

R u l e 1 1

- 4 0 4 ( B ) ( 2 ) , a n db e c au s e anev id en ti ary ru li ng i s d i s c r e t i o n a ry, 8 the ruling do es not present a legal question . W e disagree. 9 { 9} In State v. Chavez , our S upr em e Co urt e xpl ai ne d tha t A rt ic le V I, Se ct ion2 of 10 the NewMexico Constitu tion p erm its the State to appeal an order granting a new tr ial 11 be ca use the S ta te ha s a“ str ong int er es t i n e nf or ci ng a law fu l j ur

y ve rd ic t. ” 1982

- 12 N MS C- 108, ¶

6, 98 N

. M. 682 , 652 P

. 2d 2 32. T his hol din g w as later li m ite d by 13 G rif fin , which provid ed that in a crim inal case, the State m ay only appeal “ an order 14 in whic h it

is cl ai m ed the gr an t of

ane wtr ia l w as ba se d ona n e rr one ous co nc lus ion 15 that prej udicial l e gal error occurre d during the trial or that new ly -discovered evidence 16 w ar rants ane wtr ia l. ” 1994 -N MS C- 061, ¶ 11. 17 { 10} At the hear ing on De fendant’ s m otion for a new trial, the district court noted 18 tha t ev en tho ugh the ind ic tm en t ch ar ge d onl y co nduc t tha t w as dis co ve re d dur ing the 1 9 ex ec uti on o f

t h e s e a r c h w a rr a n t , t h e S t a t e i n t r o du c e de v i d e n c e a tt r i a l o f p r i or6

1 unc harg ed co ntr oll ed buy s invol vin g De fe ndant tha t we re m ad e in the w ee ks l ea din g 2 up t o th e ex ec uti on of the se ar ch w ar rant. Be ca use unc ha rg ed

m isc ondu ct

f al ls w ith in 3 the a m bit of Ru le 11- 404( B) , w hic h r equir es r ea sona ble not ic e pr ior

to intro duc tio n 4 at tr ia l, the dis tr ic t c ourt f

ound that the S tate di d no t pr ovi de r ea sona ble not ic e to 5 Defen da nt of it s i nt en t t o u se th es e p rio r co nt ro ll edbu y s. See Rule 11-404(B)(2)(a ), 6 (b ) (p ro vid ing that, in a cr im ina l ca se , ev ide nc e of oth er c ri m es m ay

be a dm iss ibl e fo r 7 certa in purposes, but the prosecution m ust give reasonable notice of th e g en eral 8 na tur e of

a ny suc h e vid en ce be fo re tr ia l, or dur ing tr ia l if the dis tr ic t cour t exc use s th e 9 la ck of pr etri al not ic e fo r good ca use ). T he dis tr ic t c ourt f

urthe r sugg es te d th at

in an y 10 se co nd tri al , the S ta te c oul d e ith er am en d th e ind ic tm en t t o in cl ude the pr ior 11 controlled bu y s, or f

ile a notice of intent to use Rule 11-404 (B) evidence. 12 { 11} Im

portantly , the district court’s ruling wa s not th at the evidence of uncharged 13 controlled bu y s would or would not have been adm issib le u nder Rule 11-404(B). I f 14 the prosecution had provid ed reasonable n otice, and if th e defe nse had then ob j ected 15 to the ev ide nc e, the dis tr ic t co urt w oul d have be en pr es en te d w ith anopp ortun ity to 16 rule on the adm issib ility of this evidence. I nstead, the district co u rt concluded that 17 und er t he fac ts of this case, bec ause the prior controlled buy s wer e uncharged 18 m isc ondu ct , the pr ose cu tio n f ai le d to r ea sona

bly not if y the de fe nse of

its in tent to 19 intro duc e suc h e vid en ce , w hic h w as c ontrary to Ru le 11- 404( B) an d pre j udi ci al to the7

1 de fe nse . Be ca

use the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s r uli ng hin ge d up on the int er pr et at iona nd 2 application of the notice requirem ent of Rule 11-404(B)(2) to the fa cts of this case, 3 we hold th at the district court’ s grant of a newtrial w as based on the conclusio n that 4 pr ej udi ci al le ga l e rr or

oc curr ed , w hic h the St at e w as pe rm itt ed to im m ed ia te ly appe al

. 5 Se e G rif

fin , 199 4- N MS C- 061, ¶

14 ( hol din g, in a ca se w he re the onl y ba sis f or the 6 grant of a newtrial w as newly -d i s co vered evidence, that such an order wa s 7 ap pe al ab le “ be ca

use it pr es en ts a qu es tio n of

lawe as ily

r ev ie w ed

by a n a ppe llate 8 co urt an d not a que sti on of f ac t a s to the c or

re ctne ss o f a dis cr et ion ar y r uli ng” ); see 9 als o F ed

. R. E vid

. 404 a dvi sor y c om m itt ee ’ s no te ( 1991 a m en dm en ts) (“ Be ca use the 10 notice requirem ent

s e r ves as conditio n precedent to adm issib ility of [Rule 11-404(B)] 11 evidence, the off

ered e vidence is inadm issib le if the c o urt decides that the notice 12 requirem ent has not been m et.” ). 13 B. Th e D ist ri ctC ou rt ’s Ju ri sd ic ti on t o G ra nta N ew Tr ial 14 { 12} W e tur

n ne xt t o the St at e’ s cont en tio n that the dis tr ic t c ourt l ac ke d j ur isd ic tio n 15 to g rant D ef

en da nt’ s m oti on f

or ane w tr ia l onoth er

gr ound s th at

w er e ra ise d su a 16 spon te by

the c ourt m or e than ten da y s af te r the e ntr

y of the j ur y ’ s ve rd ic t. T he S ta te 17 arg ue s t ha t t he di st ric t co ur t ef fect iv el y rai se d a n d g r a n t e d a ne w tri al on it s o wn 18 m oti on o uts ide of

the te n- da y

w ind owse t f

orth in Rule 5- 614( C)

. T he S ta te a lso 19 argues t h at t h e d istrict court needed to have enlarged the tim e for the f iling of a8

1 m otion fo r newtrial w ithin the ten-day window bef

ore it could consid er other 2 additio nal ground s to grant a new tr ial. W e disagree. 3 { 13} O n a

ppe al , w e ad dr es s w he the r the dis tr ic t co urt ha d j ur isd ic tio n to gr an t a 4 m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l d e n ov o. Sta te v . M ore lan d , 2007-NMC A- 047, ¶ 9, 141 N.M. 5 549, 157 P

. 3d 7 28, af

f’ d on oth er

gro unds , 200 8- N MS C- 031, 144 N

. M. 192 , 185 6 P. 3d 363. It is undi sput ed tha t D ef en da nt inv oke d the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s j ur isd ic tio n by 7 ti m el y fil in g a m ot io n for a ne w tri al

. Se e Stat e v. L uc er o , 200 1- N MS C- 024, ¶ 9, 130 8 N. M. 676, 30 P. 3d 365 (holdin g that the ten-day filing requirem ent in Rule 5-614(C) 9 is j ur i sd i c t i on a l )

. T he d i str i c tc ourtt he n e xe r c i se d i t s i nd e pe nd e nt d i sc r e t i onw he n 10 ru lin g up on De fe ndant’ s tim el y -f ile d m oti on. T he f

ac t tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt ba se d it s 11 ru lin g ondif

fe re nt g ro unds doe s no t a lte r the j ur isd ic tio na l ana ly sis

. Ins of ar as the 12 St at e ar gue s th at

the distri ct co urt i s pr ohi bit ed f ro m r el y ing on d if

fe re nt g ro unds 13 from those raised by

the m ovin g party

when it does go bey ond ten d ay s of the entry 14 of th e v erd ic t, t he Sta te po in ts us to no au th or it y in su pp or t o f th is co nt en ti on , and we 15 are u na ware o f an y . Se e gen erall y In re A dopt ion of

D oe , 1984 -N MS C- 024, ¶ 2, 100 16 N. M. 764, 676 P. 2d 13 29 (“ W e assum e w h er e ar gum ents in briefs are unsu pported 17 by c ite d auth or ity , c ouns el a ft er dil ige nt s earc h, wa s un ab le to fi nd any sup portin g 18 au th or it y .”). To t he ex te nt th atth e St at e in vi te s u s t o a d op t s uc h a po si ti on , we 19 believe it would be contrary to the wording and intent of R ule 5-614, and therefore9

1 de cl in e. C

f

. M ore lan d , 200 7- N MC A -0 47, ¶ 22, ( “ Ru le 5- 614( A ) co uld a lso be 2 construed as reser

ving to the district c ourt a ‘ reser voir of equitable power’ to assure 3 that justice is done, and order a new trial s ua spont e bey ond th e thirty day s specified 4 in Rule 5-614(C).” (citation om itted)). Ac cordingly , w e conclude that the district 5 co urt ha d j ur isd ic tio n to gr an t D ef en da nt’ s m oti on fo r a ne w tr ia l and p ro ce ed to 6 ad dr es s th e m er its of

the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s r

uli ng. 7 C . Th e D ist ri ctC ou rt ’s D isc re ti on t o G ra nta N ew Tr ial 8 { 14} The Sta te r ai se s tw o ge ne ra l arg um en ts c ha lle ngi ng the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t 9 of ane wtr ia l: (1 ) the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed by fi nd in g th at the S ta te f

ai le d to pr ovi de 10 not ic e of

it s in te nt t o us e the pr ior c ontro lle d buy s a s e vid en ce of pr ior ba d ac ts and 11 surprised Def

endant as a result; and (2) the evidence of the prior controlled bu y s was 12 adm iss ibl e unde r Ru le 11- 404( B) be ca use de fe nse co unse l’ s ope ni ng stat em en t 13 pla ce d D ef

en da nt’ s in te nt, kno w le dge , a nd p oss es sio n of the dr ugs ins ide of

the 14 ap ar tm en t a t i ssu e. I n r es pons e, D ef en da nt arg ue s th at

the S ta te did

not spe ci fi ca lly 15 de sig na te it s inte nt to intr oduc e the co ntr oll ed buy s as pri or ba d act s e vid en ce w ith 16 a perm itted purpo se, a s required by Rule 11-404(B)(2). Apar t fr o m l ack o f proper 17 notice, D efendant further argues that the evidence of controlled buy s noneth eless wa s 18 not a dm iss ibl e Ru le 11- 404( B) e vid en ce be ca use it ha d no pur

pose oth er

than to 19 p ro v e a prior propensity to act in a particular

m anner. For the r easons discu ssed10

1 be low , w e af

fi rm the dis tr ic t cour

t’ s fin din g that the St at e fa ile d to pr ovi de a de qua te 2 notice of its intent to use the evidence of prior controlled buy s under Rule 11-404 (B) 3 and conclude that there wa s no a buse of discretion when the district court determ ined 4 tha t this e rr or

w as suf fi ci en tly pr ej udi ci al to w ar

rant a ne wtr ia l. 5 { 15} O n a

ppe al , w e re vie wthe distr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of ane wtr ia l f

or “ cl ear an d 6 unm istakable abuse of discretion.” G rif fin , 199 4- N MS C- 061, ¶

9. W e ap ply a tw o7 pr on g t es t to de te rm in e whe th er th e d is tri ctco ur t ab us edit s d is cret io n. Id

. Fir st , we 8 de te rm ine w he the r the gr an t of the ne wtr ia l w as pr em ise d up on l eg al e rror, a nd 9 se co nd, w e eva lua te “ w he the r the er ro r is s ubst an tia l e noug h to w ar rant the e xe rc ise 10 of the [d i st

r i c t ] c ou r t’ s discretion.” Id

. (internal quotation m arks and citation om itted). 11 N o a buse of dis cr et ion oc curs w he n the re are r ea sons to both su ppor t and d etra ct

f ro m 12 th e d is tri ctco ur t’s ru li ng . M ore lan d , 2008 -N MS C- 031, ¶ 9. “ Be ca use the tr ia l j udge 1 3 ha s obs e rv e dt h e d e m e a n o r o f t h e w i t n e s s e s a n dh a s h e a r da l l t h e e v i d e n c e , t he 14 func tio n of pa ssi ng on m oti ons fo r ne w tr ia l be lon gs na tur al ly an d pe cu liarl y to the 15 trial court. ” Id

. (al te rat io n, i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s, an d c it at io n o m it te d)

. 16 1. Le gal e rr or 17 { 16} W e turn first to the questio n of whether the district court correctly determ ined 18 the prosecution failed to provide adequate notice of its intent to offer Rule 11-404(B) 19 ev ide nc e. In gr an tin g a new tr ia l, the dis tr ic t cour t ora lly co nc lud ed tha t D ef en da nt11

1 w as sur

pr ise d by the e rr oneous a dm iss ionof the pr ior c ontro lle d buy s. T he S ta te 2 dis put es thi s, ar gui ng tha t be ca use the de fe nse m ove d to e xc lud e the state m en ts o f the 3 CI on he ar say an d co nf ro nta tio n gr ound s in a pr etri al m oti on, thi s ind ic at ed that the 4 de fe nse ha d su ff

ic ie nt ac tua l not ic e of the St at e’ s int en t to intro duc e ev ide nc e of the 5 co n t r o l l ed b u ys. T h e S t at e f u rt h erar g u es t h at du ri n g t h e h ea ri n g o n De fe n d an t ’s 6 m otion , the prosecutor’ s statem ent that the det ec t i v e sh ould be allowed to testify 7 ab out his obse rv at ion s as to the co ntr oll ed buy s su ff ic ie ntl y a le rt ed the de fe nse to the 8 issue. 9 { 17} In he re nt i n th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f ind ing that the de fe nse w as sur pr ise d by thi s 10 ev ide nc e w as a de te rm ina tio n th at a ny a ct ua l no tic e ste m

m ing f ro m the dis cu ssi on 11 about d e f

e ns e c ouns e l ’ s m ot i on i n l i m i ne t o e xc l ud e st a t e m e nt s of t he C I on other 12 gr ound s w as ins uf

fi ci en t un de r Ru le 11- 404( B) (2 ) to put the de fe nse on n oti ce of the 13 na tur e of

the pr ior ba d ac ts ev ide nc e to be pr es en te d at tr ia l. Ru le 11- 404( B) state s: 14 (1) Prohibited [U] ses . E v i d e n c e o f ac r i m e , w r o n g , o r

o t h e r a c ti s n ot 15 adm iss ibl e to p ro ve ape rs on’ s c ha ra ct er in or de r to show that ona 16 particular occa sion th e person acted in acc ordance w ith the character

. 17 (2) P erm itt ed [U] ses; [N ] oti ce in a [C

] rim ina l [C

] ase . T his evidence 18 m ay

be adm issib le f

o r ano ther purpose, such as proving m otive, 19 oppo rt

uni ty , int en t, pr ep ar at ion , pla n, kno w le dge , ide nti ty , abse nc e of 20 m ist ak e, or

la ck of a cc ide nt. I n ac ri m ina l c as e, the pr ose cu tio n m ust 21 (a) provide reasonable noti ce of the general n ature of any such 22 ev ide nc e tha t the pr ose cu tor int en ds t o of

fe r at tr ia l, a nd12

1 (b) do so before trial—or during trial if the c ourt, for good cause, 2 excuses lack of pretria l notice. 3 { 18} O ur

c as e lawstate s th at

it is incu m be nt up on the party

se ek ing to of

fe r Ru le 4 11-404 ( B ) e vi de nc e “ t o i de nt i f y t he c on se qu e nt i a l f

a c tt o w hi c h t he p r of

f e r ed 5 evidence of other acts is direc ted.” Sta te v . L uc er o , 199 2-NMC A- 107, ¶ 10, 114 N. M. 6 489, 840 P.2d 125 5. “ The propo nent of t he evidence m ust dem onstrate its relevancy 7 to the c onse que nti al f

ac ts, a nd the m at er ia l is su e, su ch a s in te nt, m ust in fa ct be in 8 dispu te.” State v. El i n s ki , 199 7- N MC A -1 17, ¶ 13, 124 N

. M. 261 , 948 P

. 2d 1 209, 9 ov errul ed

on o the r gr ound

s bySta te v . T

ollardo , 201 2- N MS C- 008, 275 P

. 3d 1 10. 10 { 19} W e disagree w ith the State’ s sugg estion th at the general dis cu s sion th at 11 oc curr ed in the co ur se of the pr oc ee din g on D ef en da nt’ s he ar say obj ec ti on , along 12 w ithm at er ia ls p ro vid ed in dis co ve ry , sho uld

be r eg ard ed

a s su ff ic ie nt t o pr ovi de 13 re as ona

ble not ic e of

the ge ne ra l na tur e of the ev ide nc e the S ta te int en de d to pr es en t. 14 Indoi ng s o, we ac know le dge that R ule 11- 404( B) (2 ), w hil e re qui ri ng a pr ose cu tor 15 to p ro vid e re as ona

ble not ic e of

pr ior ba d a ct s, doe s no t pr ovi de spe ci fi c gui da nc e on 16 ex ac tly

howthi s no tic e is to be ac co m pli she d. A s such , the pla in la ngua ge of the r ule 17 ac co m

m oda te s a cer

ta in am ount of fl ex ibi lity . N ev er the le ss, at am ini m um , the S ta te 18 m ust giv e direct notice that it specifically intends to introdu ce prior bad ac ts evidence 19 un de r Ru le 11 -4 04 (B)( 2) pu rs ua nt to an art ic ul at edpe rm is si bl e u se . See 3 Clifford S. 20 Fi sh man, Jones on Evidence § 17 :24 , a t 36 8 ( 7the d. 199 8) ( “N oti ce sho uld be13

1 suf fi ci en tly de ta ile d to pe rm it de fe ndant t o br ing am oti on in lim ine

. D isc los ing the 2 inf orm at ionin dis co ve ry

r athe r than inr es pons e to the spe ci fi c ru le

. . . ‘ m isses the 3 poi nt’ of

the r ule , w hic h is to inf

orm the de fe ndant o f cri m es the [ s] ta te int en ds t o 4 intro duc e an d to a llo wthe de fe ndant t im e to r es pond by m oti on i n li m ine or 5 oth er w ise

. ” (f ootnot es om itt ed ) (quot ing St a t e v . H oul e , 6 42 A

. 2d 1 178, 118 1 ( V t. 6 1994 ))

. H er e, a lth oughit m ay ha ve be co m e re as ona bly appare nt tha t the S ta te 7 i nt e nd e d t o i ntr od

uc e e vi de nc e of t he pr i or c on t r ol l e d buy s, t he S t a t e neither 8 spe ci fi cally i nv oke d R ule 11- 404( B) nor

m ad e an y

a tte m pt t o id en tif

y the 9 co nse que nti al f

ac t or f ac ts t o w hic h th e pr ior

ba d a ct s e vid en ce in que sti on m igh t 10 pr op erl y

ha ve be en di rect ed

. Se e Sta te v . Se rna , 2013 -N MS C- 033, ¶ 19, 305 P

. 3d 9 36 11 (h old ing that the S tate’s fai lure to inf orm the c ourt of

the r el ev an ce of

pr ior 12 convictio ns bey ond m erely rec iting th e ex ce ption s enum erate d in Rule 11-40 4(B) 13 re sul te d inthe e rr one ous adm iss ionof pr ior c ri m es e viden ce ); Sta te v . G all eg os , 14 2007 -N MS C- 007, ¶

25, 141 N

. M. 185 , 152 P

. 3d 8 28 ( sta tin g th at a pa rty se ek ing to 15 intro duc e Ru le 11- 404( B) e vid en ce m ust both “ ide nti fy

and art ic ula te the 16 co nse que nti al f

ac t t o w hic h th e ev ide nc e is d ir ec te d” a nd “ co ge ntl y inf orm the 17 co urt—

w he the r the tr ia l c ourt or ac ourt onappe al —the r at ion al e fo r adm itt ing the 18 evidence to prove som ething o ther than propensit y ”).14

1 { 20} W e not e tha t, ha d th e ind ic tm en t enc om pa sse d D ef

en da nt’ s c ondu ct

dur ing the 2 controll e d buy s, e vi de nc e c on c e rni ng t he c on t r ol l e d buy s w ou l d no th a ve been 3 subj ec t t o R

ule 11- 404( B) (2 )’ s notic e re qui re m en t be ca use suc h c ondu ct

w oul d no t 4 ha ve be ena n “ oth er act ” un de r the r ule

. T he f

ac t tha t the c ondu ct

c ha rg ed in the 5 ind ic tm en t di d not in cl ude D ef en da nt’ s c ondu ct

dur ing the c ontro lle d buy s m ay ha ve 6 be ena n ov er sig ht o n th e pa rt of the S ta te , the im

pli catio ns o f w hic h w er e not 7 specifically

addressed by

the defense, the State, or the district court until th e district 8 co urt di sc ove re d th e ove rs igh t. H ow ev er , onc e the dis tr ic t c ourt di sc ov ered the 9 ove rs igh t, r ea liz ed

that a dm iss ionof

the co ntr oll ed buy s evid en ce w as gov er ne d by 10 the li m itatio ns o f Ru le 11- 404 (B), and c onc lud ed that the S ta te did

not pr ovi de the 11 re qui re d R

ule 11- 404( B) (2 ) not ic e, the dis tr ic t cour t ac te d w el l w ith in i ts d isc re tio n 12 to ad dr es s wh et he r to ord e ra ne w tri al

. See 3 Fi sh m an , supra , § 17 :24 , a t 36 7- 68 13 (“ T he c ourt in its disc re tio n m ay , und er the f ac ts, de ci de that the part ic ular re que st o r 14 no ti ce was no t reas on ab le , e it he r be cau se of th e la ckof t im el in es s o r co m pl et en es s.” 15 (f ootnot e om itt ed ) (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks and c itatio n om itt ed )) ; se e als o G rif fin , 16 1994 -N MS C- 061, ¶

9 ( re qui ri ng “ cl ear an d unm ist ak ab le abuse of dis cr et ion ” to 17 rev ers e a d is tri ctco ur t’s o rd er fo r a n ew tr ia l). 18 { 21} Co urts h av e lon g r ec ogni ze d th e da nge rs of unf ai r sur pr ise a ssoci at ed

w ith 19 pr io r ba d a ct s ev id en ce. See State v. Martinez , 200 8- N MS C- 060, ¶ 23, 145 N

. M. 220 ,15

1 195 P. 3d 1 232. Re qui ri ng p ro se cu tor s to pr ovi de a dvanc e not ic e of the ir int en t t o 2 pr es en t s uc h e vi de nc e attri al ser ve s s ig ni fic an t p ur po se s. See 3 F is hm an , s u pra , § 3 17.19 at 360 (“ Such not i ce p er m its the defendant to m ove to challenge such 4 adm issib ility

prior to trial, avoids the risk that the j ury will be exposed to prejudicial 5 m at er ia l be fo re the c ourt ca n exc lud e it, an d ena ble s the co urt t o c ondu ct

ahe ar ing , 6 re qui re br ie fs , et c. , w ith out dis ru pti ng the tr ia l its el f. A pr etri al r uli ng o n a dm iss ibi lity 7 al so pe rm its the pa rt ie s to plan the ir str at eg y ac co rd ing ly [. ] ”)

. E nabli ng defe nse 8 co u n s el to anticipate the presentation of Rule 11-404 (B) evidence fac ilitates 9 int el lig en t ob

j ec tio n and arg um en t, pr ovi de s gr eate r oppo rt uni ty f or tho ught fu l 10 ru lin gs tha t ad dr es s all le git im at e co nsi de ratio ns and c onc er ns, a nd t ai lor s th e 11 ev ide nc e pr es en te d to the spe ci fi c circu m stanc es . A s ar es ult , the S ta te ’ s f ai lur e to 12 giv e D ef

en da nt art ic ula te d no tic e tha t i t i nte nde d to use the pr ior c ontro lle d buy s f

or 13 som e purpose allowed under Rule 11-404(B)(2) resulted in legal error that the district 14 co urt w as e nti tle d to a ddr es s. 15 2. Pr ejud ice 16 { 22} We tu rn n ex tt o t h e q u es t i o n o f p re ju d i ce an dad d ress wheth ert h e p ro s ec u t i o n ’s 17 failure to notify

the defense of its intent to introduce evidence of the prior controlled 18 buy s w as pr ej udi ci al a nd, if so, w he the r the pr ej udi ce w as sub stanti al e noug h to 19 warra nt an ex erci se of t he di st ric t co ur t’s d is cret io n. Se e G rif fin , 199 4- N MS C- 061,16

1 ¶ 9 ( stati ng tha t the se co nd p ro ng o f the tw o- pr ong te st t o de te rm ine w he the r the 2 d i s t r i c t co u rt ’s g ra n t o f a ne w tr i al wa s an ab u s e o f di s cr et i o n i n v o l v es “a 3 de te rm ina tio n of w he the r the e rr or is subs tanti al e noug h to w ar rant the e xe rc ise of

the 4 [d is tri ct ] co ur t’s d is cret io n” (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io n o m it t e d ) )

. “ [A] 5 m uch strong er showin g i s required to overturn an order granting the new tria l than 6 deny ing a new tria l.” Id

. ¶ 1 2 ( i n t e rn a l qu o t a t i o n m a r k s an dc i t a t i o n o mi t t e d )

. “A 7 re vie w of the ac tio n of the tr ia l c ourt i n th e ex er ci se of it s di sc re tio n do es not

de pe nd 8 upon whether

the appellate court w ould have reached the sam e conclusion .” State v. 9 Gonzales , 19 86 -NMCA- 05 0, ¶ 1 4, 1 05 N.M. 23 8, 7 31 P.2d 38 1, overruled on other 10 grou nds bySta te v . T ollardo , 201 2- N MSC -0 08

. W e co nc lud e tha t un de r the 11 ci rc um stanc es pr es en te d in thi s ca se , the dis tr ic t co urt’ s gr an t of a ne wtr ia l w as not 12 anabuse of

dis cr et ion

. 13 { 23} The district court deter m ined that evidence of the prior controlled bu y s was 14 sufficiently

prej udicial to warr ant an exercise of its discretion to grant a newtrial 15 be ca use , as undi sput ed by the S ta te , the pr ior unc ha rg ed

c ontro lle d buy s w er e: ( 1) the 16 onl y e vid en ce li nki ng D ef

en da nt t o th e ap ar

tm en t; (2 ) th e onl y

e vid en ce li nki ng 17 D ef en da nt t o th e co -d efendant ; and ( 3) the onl y e vid en ce li nki ng D ef

en da nt t o th e 18 dr ugs fo und ins ide the apa rtm en t duri ng the ex ecution of the se ar chw ar

rant. T he 19 dis tr ic t c ourt, ha vin g he ar d all pr etri al m oti ons an d the tr ia l in its ent ir ety , w as in the17

1 best pos ition to evaluate th e p rej udicial effe ct o f th is im portant evidence o n the trial 2 as a w hol e, an d our re vie w of the re co rd co m ports w ith the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s a sse ssm en t 3 of the im

portance of th is evidence. Se e M ore lan d , 200 8- N MS C- 031, ¶ 9 ( pr ovi din g 4 t h at wh er e e v i d en ce i n t h e re co rd b o t h s up p o rt s an dd es t ra ct s fr o m t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s 5 gr an t of

ne wtr ia l, the re is no a

buse of dis cr et ion )

. 6 { 24} Fi na lly , the S tate a rg ue s th at a ne wtr ia l w as unw ar rante d be ca

use the pr ior 7 co ntr oll ed

buy s w er e adm iss ibl e Ru le 1 1

- 4 0 4 ( B ) e v i d e n c e t o p r o v e D e f e n d an t’ s in te nt 8 t o d i s t ri b u t e a n dco n s p i re t o t ra ff i c c o ca i n e, as we l l as t o s h o w De fe n d an t ’s 9 knowledge, ac cess, and control over the drugs that wer e kept inside the apartm ent. I n 10 respo ns e , D e f

e nd a nt a r gu e s t hatt he e vi de nc e o f p r i or c on t r ol l e d buy s wa s 11 unne ce ssary , ove rl y

pr ej udi ci al , a nd only of

fe re d for the im

pr ope r pur

pose of pr ovi ng 12 a prior propensity

to act in a particular

m anner. 13 { 25} At this j un ct u re , h owever , w e decline to resolve the question of w hether 14 ev ide nc e of

the pr ior c ontro lle d buy s c oul d have be ena dm iss ibl e ev id e n c e un d er Ru le 15 11-404 (B)( 2) to show intent, knowledge, access, and control over the drugs at issue. 16 Beca use the district c ourt did not rule upon the adm issib ility of this evidence based 17 uponala ck of

r ea sona ble not ic e an d no pr ior

opp ortun ity

to as se ss i ts a dm iss ibi lity 18 fo r an oth er pur

pose unde r Ru le 11- 404( B) (2 ), that i ssu e re m ai ns unr es olv ed a nd this 19 Court would be prem ature in add ressing such an evidentiary issue before the district18

1 co urt has m ad e an inf

orm ed ru lin g. It is the dis tr ic t cour t’ s re spon sib ili ty to a ddr es s 2 th e g en eral ly prejud ic ia l n atur e o f e v i d e n c e of p rio r drug tra ns act io ns , see State v. 3 W right er , 199 6- NMCA- 077, ¶ 11, 122 N

. M. 200 , 922 P

. 2d 5 82 ( hol din g th at , in a 4 ca s e i n v o l v i n g a d e f

e n d a n t c h a r g e d w i t h s e l l i n g c r a c k c o c a i n e t o a C I , e vid en ce of 5 pr ior buy s be tw ee n th at

de fen da nt and

the sa m e CI w er e not

a dm iss ibl e to s how 6 co n t e x t , a n d , e v e n a s s u m i n g t h e e v i d e n c e w a s a d m i s s i b l e , i t w a s m o r e unf ai rl y 7 prej udicial than prob ative and shou ld h av e been excluded), and it is im portant that 8 suc h e vid en ce be de te rm ined t o have “ re al pr oba tiv e va lue , a nd n ot j ust pos sib le 9 w orth o n is sue s of

int en t, m oti ve , abse nc e o f m istak e or a cc ide nt, or

to es ta bli sh a 10 schem e or plan.” Se rna , 201 3- N MS C- 033, ¶ 17 ( int er na l quota tio n m ar

ks and c itatio n 11 om itt ed ) (quot ing Sta te v . M ason , 196 8- N MC A -0 72, ¶ 23, 79 N

. M. 663 , 448 P

. 2d 12 175)

. W e co nc lud e tha t the dis tr ic t cour t did not abus e its dis cr et ionin de te rm ini ng 13 tha t the pr ose cu tio n’ s f ai lur e to giv e no ti ce of it s in te nt t o of

fe r ev ide nc e of 14 D ef en da nt’ s pr ior

ba d a ct s un de r Ru le 11- 404( B) w as su ffi ci en tly pr ej udi ci al to 15 w ar rant a ne wtr ia l. 16 CON CLU SION 17 { 26} Fo r the f

or eg oin g r ea sons , w e af

fi rm the dis tr ic t c our

t’ s gr an t of

ane wtr ia l.19

1 { 27} IT IS S O ORDERE D.

2

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 3 TI M OT HYL. GA R C IA , Ju dg e 4 WE CO NCUR:

5

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 6 JA M ES J. WE C HS LE R , Ju dg e

7

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 8 J. M IL ES HA N IS EE , Ju dg e