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, along with two others, was arrested for allegedly smuggling 68 pounds of marijuana. The marijuana was found in a car parked at a motel in Las Cruces, New Mexico. One co-defendant was arrested at the car, while the Defendant and another co-defendant were observed leaving the motel earlier. Evidence suggested the three were traveling together, and one co-defendant admitted they were assisting an illegal alien through border checkpoints and suspected marijuana was in the car (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court, August 28, 1996: The court precluded the State from calling a key witness, Pereyra, at trial due to his name not being included in pretrial witness lists (paras 4-5).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (State): Argued that the district court abused its discretion by striking the witness without considering less severe sanctions, such as a continuance, and claimed the Defendant failed to show particularized prejudice (para 1).
- Appellee (Defendant): Contended that the failure to disclose the witness caused surprise and prejudice, as the witness's testimony was critical to the State's case, and the defense lacked adequate time to prepare for cross-examination or investigate the witness's background (paras 10-12).
Legal Issues
- Did the district court abuse its discretion by striking the State's witness without considering less severe sanctions?
- Was the Defendant prejudiced by the State's failure to disclose the witness in pretrial witness lists?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to suppress the witness's testimony (para 15).
Reasons
Per Bustamante J. (Hartz CJ. and Flores J. concurring):
The Court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in striking the witness. The State failed to comply with its disclosure obligations under Rule 5-505(A), and the district court acted within its discretion to impose sanctions, including precluding the witness from testifying (paras 6-7). The Court rejected the State's argument that the district court was required to consider less severe sanctions, noting that the State did not propose alternatives such as a continuance during the trial proceedings (paras 8-10).
The Court found that the Defendant demonstrated sufficient prejudice, as the witness's testimony was critical to the State's case, and the defense lacked adequate time to prepare for cross-examination or investigate the witness's background. The district court's finding of "surprise" was supported by the record (paras 11-12). Additionally, the Court noted that time constraints under the six-month rule may have limited the feasibility of a continuance (para 13). Thus, the district court's decision was not "clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances of the case" (para 14).