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 convicted of four counts of trafficking controlled substances. He argued that his entrapment defense was linked to his residence in a rehabilitation facility. The Defendant attempted to introduce two witnesses to support his defense, but the district court excluded them, citing their lack of personal knowledge about the Defendant's intent and the untimeliness of their disclosure (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court, Lincoln County: The Defendant was convicted of four counts of trafficking controlled substances (para 2).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in excluding two defense witnesses crucial to his entrapment defense and failed to consider the factors required by State v. Le Mier. He also contended that the district court should have ruled on objective entrapment as a matter of law (paras 2-3, 7).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Argued that the exclusion of witnesses was justified due to their lack of personal knowledge and the untimeliness of their disclosure. The State also disputed the relevance of the entrapment defense, given the Defendant's actions (paras 4-5).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in excluding the Defendant's witnesses for lack of personal knowledge and untimely disclosure.
• Whether the district court should have ruled on objective entrapment as a matter of law.

Disposition

• The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to exclude the witnesses and upheld the Defendant's convictions (para 9).

Reasons

Per Wray J. (Ives and Yohalem JJ. concurring):

The Court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the witnesses, as the Defendant failed to establish their personal knowledge of his specific intent or entrapment defense. The witness list was also untimely, violating Rule 5-502(A)(3) NMRA. The Court noted that the Defendant's argument regarding police misconduct and entrapment was unpreserved, as it was not raised at the motion hearing. Furthermore, the evidence did not support a finding of objective entrapment, as the Defendant willingly engaged in the drug transactions without persistent solicitation or hesitancy (paras 5-9).