This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Reports. Please 1 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 2 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated 3 errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does 4 not include the filing date. 5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 7 Plaintiff-Appellee, 8

v. NO. 30,936 9 JOCLYN TELLES, 10 Defendant-Appellant, 11 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY 12 Stephen Bridgforth, District Judge 13 Gary K. King, Attorney General 14 Santa Fe, NM 15 for Appellee 16 Jacqueline Cooper, Acting Chief Public Defender 17 Adrianne R. Turner, Assistant Appellate Defender 18 Santa Fe, NM 19 for Appellant 20 MEMORANDUM OPINION 21 VIGIL, Judge. 222 Defendant-Appellant Joclyn Telles (Def endant) appeals her conviction for 1 battery on a police officer. We issued a notice of proposed summary disposition, 2 proposing to uphold the conviction. Defendant has filed a memorandum in 3 opposition. After due consideration, we re main unpersuaded. We therefore affirm. 4 In her memorandum in opposition, Defendant continues to argue that the district 5 court erred in excluding the testimony of anexpert witness. [MIO 3-5] As we 6 explained at greater length in the notice of proposed summary disposition, insofar as 7 the witness was unable to render an opinion, [MIO 2] we fail to see how his testimony 8 could either have been relevant or of assistance to the jury. See generally State v. 9 Downey, 2008-NMSC-061, ¶ 30, 145 N.M. 232, 195 P.3d 1244 (observing that “ 10 expert testimony is inadmissible under Ru le 11-702 unless it will assist the trier of 11 fact,” and further noting that this requirement goes primarily to relevance). The 12 memorandum in opposition contains no further argument or authority to persuade us 13 otherwise. As a result, we conclude th at the exclusion of his testimony was well 14 within the district court’s discretion. 15 Defendant also renews her challenge to the exclusion of two potential witnesses 16 as a discovery sanction. [MIO5-6] As we previously stated, in light of Defendant’s 17 failure to fulfill her responsibility to facilitate interviews despite numerous 18 continuances, given the dim prospects of obtaining interviews in the future, and 193 because the probative value of the witnesse s’ testimony was speculative at best, the 1 exclusion of their testimony appears to have been reasonable and appropriate. See 2 generally State v. Harper, 2010-NMCA-055, ¶ 22, 148 N.M. 286, 235 P.3d 625 3 (observing that Rule 5-503 encompasses w itness interviews, and characterizing the 4 facilitation of such interviews as a responsibility), cert. granted, 2010-NMCERT-006, 5 148 N.M. 584, 241 P.3d 182; cf. State v. Torres , 1999-NMSC-010, ¶ 10, 127 N.M. 20, 6 976 P.2d 20 (listing various factors to be taken into consideration). Because the 7 memorandum in opposition contains nothing s ubstantive to alter our assessment, we 8 conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. 9 Accordingly, for the reasons stated above and in our notice of proposed 10 summary disposition, Defendant ’s conviction is AFFIRMED. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12

______________________________ 13 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 14 WE CONCUR: 15

______________________________ 16 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 174 ______________________________ 1 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 2