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 Please 1 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 2 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated 3 errors or other deviations from the official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. 29,337 9 RAKEEM HOLLAND, 10 Defendant-Appellant. 11 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY 12 Lee V. Vesely, District Judge 13 Gary K. King, Attorney General 14 Santa Fe, NM 15 for Appellee 16 Hugh W. Dangler, Chief Public Defender 17 Navin H. Jayaram, Assistant Appellate Defender 18 Santa Fe, NM 19 for Appellant 20 MEMORANDUM OPINION 21 VIGIL, Judge. 222 Defendant is appealing from a districtcourt judgment and sentence entered 1 after a jury found Defendant guilty of battery upon a peace officer. We issued a 2 calendar notice proposing to affirm. Defendant has responded with a 3 memorandum in opposition. We affirm. 4 ADMISSION OF VIDEOTAPE 5 The victim in this case provided tes timony that a videotape of the incident 6 was an accurate representation of what o ccurred. [MIO 2-3] Defendant continues 7 to claim that this was inadequate foundation for the admission of the video, 8 because the victim did not share the same perspective as the camera. [MIO 3] “We 9 review the admission of evidence under an abuse of discretion standard and will 10 not reverse in the absence of a clear abuse.” See State v. Sarracino , 1998-NMSC11 022, ¶ 20, 125 N.M. 511, 964 P.2d 72. 12 In his memorandum in opposition, Defe ndant argues that the tape showed 13 things from a different perspective than th e victim, and therefore the victim could 14 not establish that it was a fair and accurate representation. [MIO 4-5] We disagree. 15 See State v. Henderson , 100 N.M. 260, 261, 669 P.2d 736, 737 (stating such 16 photographic evidence is admissible “when a sponsoring witness can testify that it 17 is a fair and accurate representation of th e subject matter, based on that witness’s 18 personal observation”). The tape self-evi dently captured whatever it was filming, 19 and to the extent that Defendant is claimi ng that any material part of the incident 203 was omitted, he has not pointed to any sp ecifics. In any event, we believe that 1 foundation was satisfied upon a showing thatthe videotape fairly and accurately 2 portrayed the incident in question, [MIO 3] and any other challenge to its content 3 went to weight, rather than admissibility. 44 PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT 1 Defendant continues to claim that th e trial court should have declared a 2 mistrial based on the prosecution’s repeatedreference to Defendant as an “inmate” 3 of the juvenile correctional facility in violation of a pretrial ruling. [MIO 5] 4 “When an issue of prosecutorial misconduc t has been preserved by a specific and 5 timely objection at trial, we review the claim of error by determining whether the 6 trial court’s ruling on the claim was an abuse of discretion.” State v. Wildgrube , 7 2003-NMCA-108, ¶ 20, 134 N.M. 262, 75 P.3d 862. “Our ultimate determination 8 of this issue rests on whether the prosecutor’s improprieties had such a persuasive 9 and prejudicial effect on the jury’s verdict that the defendant was deprived of a fair 10 trial.” State v. Duffy , 1998-NMSC-014, ¶ 46, 126 N.M. 132, 967 P.2d 807. 11 As we observed in our calendar notice, Defendant’s incarcerated status was 12 probative because it related to an essential element of the case, that the victim was 13 a corrections officer. [RP 60] Defendant argues that the use of the word “inmate” 14 implied an adult incarceration (and convi ction); however, this implication was 15 obviated by reference to the fact that it was a juvenile facility. [MIO 1] Moreover, 16 there was also testimony from several CYFDofficers. [MIO 2] Regardless of how 17 the individuals of the facility are intern ally referred to, any negative implication 18 from the use of the word “inmate” was therefore speculative. See In re Ernesto M., 195 Jr. , 1996-NMCA-039, ¶ 10, 121 N.M. 562, 915 P.2d 318 (“An assertion of 1 prejudice is not a showing of prejudice.”). 2 For the reasons set forth above, we affirm. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4

5 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 6 WE CONCUR: 7

8 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 9

10 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 11