AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves the State's appeal against a district court's decision to partially grant a motion to suppress evidence and exclude testimony related to an incident observed by an Asset Protection Officer and recorded by surveillance equipment.

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, John J. Romero, District Judge: Granted in part Child's motion to suppress evidence and exclude testimony; denied the State's motion to reconsider suppression; and amended order denying the State's motion to reconsider.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State): Argued that the district court erred in excluding the testimony of Asset Protection Officer Eric Recio regarding his personal observations of the incident, which was also captured by surveillance equipment.
• Child-Appellee: Opposed the State's appeal, contending that an Asset Protection Officer is de facto an arm of the State, the video's destruction was attributable to the State, and the State destroyed the video in bad faith.

Legal Issues

• Whether Rule 11-1002 NMRA applies to the exclusion of Eric Recio’s testimony about his personal observations of the incident.
• If Rule 11-1002 NMRA does apply, whether the testimony should be admitted under Rule 11-1004 NMRA due to the original recording being lost without bad faith.
• Whether the district court abused its discretion in suppressing the testimony on due process grounds based on the State's failure to gather evidence.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s order granting in part Child’s motion to suppress evidence and exclude testimony, order denying the State’s motion to reconsider suppression, and amended order denying the State’s motion to reconsider.

Reasons

• Per RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge (MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge, TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge concurring):
  The Court found that Rule 11-1002 NMRA did not apply as the State was not seeking to prove the contents of the recording by Recio’s testimony, but rather his personal observations (para 1).
  Even if Rule 11-1002 NMRA applied, the Court determined that the testimony should have been admitted under Rule 11-1004 NMRA because the State demonstrated that the original recording was lost and not due to bad faith (para 1).
  The Court concluded that the district court abused its discretion in suppressing the testimony on due process grounds, stating that sanctions are inappropriate when the failure to gather evidence is due to negligence, oversight, or good faith (para 1).
  The Court addressed and dismissed the Child-Appellee's arguments regarding the Asset Protection Officer being an arm of the State and the bad faith destruction of the video, citing a lack of supporting authority and evidence (paras 2-3).