Court Opinion

ID: 9959046
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-10 16:08:30.922061+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:24.021310
License: Public Domain

This decision of the New Mexico Court of Appeals was not selected for publication in
the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the
citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computer-
generated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Court of
Appeals.

          IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

No. A-1-CA-41065

STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

      Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

EDWARD HOREY,

      Defendant-Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEA COUNTY
Mark Sanchez, District Court Judge

Raúl Torrez, Attorney General
Santa Fe, NM
Walter Hart, Assistant Attorney General
Albuquerque, NM

for Appellant

Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender
Santa Fe, NM
Steven J. Forsberg, Assistant Appellate Defender
Albuquerque, NM

for Appellee

                              MEMORANDUM OPINION

MEDINA, Judge.

{1}     The State appeals the district court’s order suppressing evidence as a sanction
for its discovery violation. We issued a second notice of proposed summary disposition
proposing summary reversal, and Defendant has responded with a memorandum in
opposition, which we have duly considered. We remain unpersuaded that our proposed
reversal is incorrect, and we therefore reverse the district court.
{2}    “We review the district court’s imposition of sanctions for an abuse of discretion.”
State v. Lewis, 2018-NMCA-019, ¶ 5, 413 P.3d 484; see State v. Harper, 2011-NMSC-
044, ¶ 16, 150 N.M. 745, 266 P.3d 25. “An abuse of discretion occurs when the ruling is
clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances of the case.” State v.
Le Mier, 2017-NMSC-017, ¶ 22, 394 P.3d 959 (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted).

{3}    When a party violates a discovery or scheduling order, “Harper instructs our
courts to assess (1) the culpability of the offending party, (2) the prejudice to the
adversely affected party, and (3) the availability of lesser sanctions.” Le Mier, 2017-
NMSC-017, ¶ 15; see Harper, 2011-NMSC-044, ¶ 16. In addition, our case law requires
the district court to demonstrate its consideration of the Harper/Le Mier framework on
the record. State v. McWhorter, 2022-NMCA-011, ¶¶ 16-17, 505 P.3d 865; Lewis, 2018-
NMCA-019, ¶¶ 6, 11; Le Mier, 2017-NMSC-017, ¶ 20. While, traditionally, this analysis
was applied in cases involving “severe sanctions,” this Court recently clarified that this
framework is also a necessary analysis for the imposition of lesser sanctions. See
McWhorter, 2022-NMCA-011, ¶¶ 16-17 (“While Harper, Le Mier, and Lewis are all
addressed toward severe sanctions such as dismissal with prejudice or witness
exclusion, the analytical framework articulated in these cases does not occur after the
fact based on the level of sanction the district court deems appropriate; instead, it is the
framework the court must work through to arrive at the appropriate sanction, and this
analysis may in some instances lead the court to lesser sanctions. The analysis is no
less appropriate or important in these instances.”).

{4}     Neither the district court’s written order nor its comments at the hearing indicate
that it engaged in the requisite consideration of the factors set out in Harper and Le
Mier. Accordingly, the record is insufficient to support the district court’s suppression of
the evidence at this time. See Lewis, 2018-NMCA-019, ¶ 18 (reversing the district
court’s sanction for discovery violation and remanding for development of a record
where the record was not adequate to determine whether the district court abused its
discretion because the record did not establish that the district court considered the
factors set out in Harper and Le Mier).

{5}     In his memorandum in opposition, Defendant does not contest that the district
court failed to demonstrate its consideration of the relevant factors on the record.
Rather, Defendant argues that the State failed to preserve any objection to the
sufficiency of the record in support of suppression of the evidence because the State
failed to alert the district court that its explanation was deficient so that the district court
could correct any error. [Defendant’s MIO 1-3]

{6}   We disagree. The record indicates that at the suppression hearing, the
prosecutor informed the district court that the State had located the video evidence that
morning and that it had been sent to defense counsel. [State’s MIO 10-11] The
prosecutor argued that Defendant had not been prejudiced by the late disclosure, as the
defense had been aware of the contents of the video and now was in possession of the
videos. [State’s MIO 11] The State further argued that there had not been a sufficient
showing of culpability on the part of the State. [State’s MIO 13-15] The State therefore
preserved its objection to the district court’s suppression of the evidence by arguing
against it at the hearing on the motion to suppress and making arguments in support of
its position. See State v. Montoya, 2015-NMSC-010, ¶ 45, 345 P.3d 1056 (recognizing
that to preserve an issue for appeal, a party “must make a timely objection that
specifically apprises the trial court of the nature of the claimed error and invokes an
intelligent ruling thereon.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Defendant
has cited no authority to suggest that the State was required to make a further
objection, after the district court entered its written suppression order, on the basis that
the order was insufficient. See State v. Vigil-Giron, 2014-NMCA-069, ¶ 60, 327 P.3d
1129 (“[A]ppellate courts will not consider an issue if no authority is cited in support of
the issue and that, given no cited authority, we assume no such authority exists.”). We
therefore reject this assertion of error.

{7}     For these reasons and those stated in our second notice of proposed summary
disposition, we reverse and remand this case to the district court for further
proceedings. See Lewis, 2018-NMCA-019, ¶ 18 (reversing the district court’s sanction
for discovery violation and remanding for development of a record where the record was
not adequate to determine whether the district court abused its discretion because the
record did not establish that the district court considered the factors set out in Harper
and Le Mier).

{8}    IT IS SO ORDERED.

JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge

WE CONCUR:

KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge

KATHERINE A. WRAY, Judge