Although the district court found that Defendant had actual notice of the allegations of uncharged misconduct against J.K. through pretrial interviews, "[d]isclosing the information in discovery rather than in response to the specific rule misses the point of the rule, which is to inform the defendant of crimes the state intends to introduce and to allow the defendant time to respond by motion in limine or otherwise." State v. Acosta , 2016-NMCA-003, ¶ 19, 363 P.3d 1240 (text only) (citation omitted). The "text only" parenthetical used herein indicates the omission of any of the following—internal quotation marks, ellipses, and brackets—that are present in the text of the quoted source, leaving the quoted text itself otherwise unchanged.

{24} Typically, "we review the district court's grant of a new trial for clear and unmistakable abuse of discretion." State v. Acosta , 2016-NMCA-003, ¶ 15, 363 P.3d 1240 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). However, this appeal requires us to interpret Section 31-1A-2, which "is a question that this Court reviews de novo."

{3} Initially, we proposed to hold that insofar as the State has claimed that the grant of a new trial in this case was based on an erroneous conclusion that prejudicial legal error occurred at trial, the appeal is properly before us. See State v. Acosta, 2016-NMCA-003, ¶ 9, 363 P.3d 1240 (articulating the applicable standard); and see generally Churchman v. Dorsey, 1996-NMSC-033, ¶ 11, 122 N.M. 11, 919 P.2d 1076 (observing that the question whether the trial court applied the correct standard in evaluating a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is a question of law that is reviewed de novo); State v. Griffin, 1994-NMSC-061, ¶ 14, 117 N.M. 745, 877 P.2d 551 (indicating that an order granting a new trial is "an immediately appealable order [if] it presents a question of law easily reviewed by an appellate court"). In his memorandum in opposition, Defendant does not take issue with this aspect of our analysis.