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 Defendant was indicted on charges of criminal sexual penetration and criminal sexual contact of a minor. A status conference set case-related deadlines, including a pretrial witness interview deadline. The State sought an extension for the interview deadline due to late disclosure of a witness and scheduling difficulties, which the district court denied. The Defendant then moved to exclude witnesses not interviewed by the deadline. The district court granted this motion, leading to the State's appeal (paras 2-6).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, April 2, 2015: Order granting Defendant's motion to exclude witnesses.
• Court of Appeals of New Mexico, January 24, 2017: The current decision under analysis.

Parties' Submissions

• State: Argued for an extension of the pretrial witness interview deadline, citing good cause due to late disclosure of a witness and scheduling difficulties. Later appealed the district court's decision to exclude witnesses, raising issues regarding the reconciliation of the special calendar rule with existing case law (paras 3, 7).
• Defendant: Filed a motion to exclude witnesses based on the State's failure to meet the pretrial witness interview deadline, detailing efforts to schedule interviews and the State's lack of cooperation (paras 4-6).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's decision to exclude witnesses due to the State's failure to meet the pretrial witness interview deadline was appropriate under the special calendar rule and existing case law.
• Whether the special calendar rule conflicts with the Supreme Court precedent, specifically the requirements set forth in State v. Harper regarding the exclusion of witnesses and the imposition of sanctions for discovery violations (paras 7, 12-15).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's order excluding witnesses and remanded for consideration of the Harper criteria and imposition of an appropriate sanction (para 19).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, led by Judge J. Miles Hanisee, with Chief Judge Linda M. Vanzi and Judge Julie J. Vargas concurring, found that the district court did not properly consider the criteria established in State v. Harper before excluding witnesses. Harper requires an intentional refusal to comply with a court order, prejudice to the opposing party, and consideration of less severe sanctions before excluding witnesses. The Court of Appeals concluded that no conflict exists between the special calendar rule and Harper under the facts of this case, as a lesser sanction was available that could remedy the violation and comply with the special calendar rule. The Court emphasized the importance of applying sanctions that affect the evidence and merits of the case as little as possible and noted that dismissal without prejudice could serve as an appropriate lesser sanction under the circumstances (paras 11-18).