Opinion
A-1-CA-41046
06-26-2024
STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ERIC BERNARD LAATE, Defendant-Appellee.
Raúl Torrez, Attorney General Santa Fe, NM Emily Bowen, Assistant Attorney General Albuquerque, NM for Appellant Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender Nina Lalevic, Assistant Appellate Defender Santa Fe, NM for Appellee
Corrections to this opinion/decision not affecting the outcome, at the Court's discretion, can occur up to the time of publication with NM Compilation Commission. The Court will ensure that the electronic version of this opinion/decision is updated accordingly in Odyssey.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF MCKINLEY COUNTY Louis E. DePauli, Jr., District Court Judge
Raúl Torrez, Attorney General Santa Fe, NM Emily Bowen, Assistant Attorney General Albuquerque, NM for Appellant
Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender Nina Lalevic, Assistant Appellate Defender Santa Fe, NM for Appellee
DISPOSITIONAL ORDER
SHAMMARA H. HENDERSON, Judge
THIS MATTER is on appeal from the district court's order granting Defendant's motion to reconsider, and excluding witnesses not timely disclosed by the State. We note the following:
On the day of trial, the State failed to appear and the district court granted dismissal in favor of Defendant orally. However, no written order was filed and therefore the dismissal is not a final order. See State v. Lohberger, 2008-NMSC-033, ¶ 20, 144 N.M. 297, 187 P.3d 162 ("While not all written orders are final, all final orders must be written, must be formal, and must contain decretal language." (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).
1. The State argues that the district court failed to "adequately explain its reasoning [for excluding witnesses], did not consider lesser sanctions, and abused its discretion when it imposed the most extreme sanction for a violation that had been cured."
2. "The decision to exclude evidence calls on judicial discretion to weigh all the circumstances, including willfulness in violating the discovery rule, the resulting prejudice to the opposing party, and the materiality of the precluded testimony." State v. Guerra, 2012-NMSC-014, ¶ 33, 278 P.3d 1031.
3. In State v. Harper, 2011-NMSC-044, 150 N.M. 745, 266 P.3d 25, our Supreme Court "embraced a pragmatic approach to guide courts in assessing whether the sanction of witness exclusion is appropriate." State v. Le Mier, 2017-NMSC-017, ¶ 15, 394 P.3d 959. This approach requires "assess[ing] (1) the culpability of the offending party, (2) the prejudice to the adversely affected party, and (3) the availability of lesser sanctions." Id.
4. It is not necessary for "all of the Harper considerations [to] weigh in favor of exclusion." Le Mier, 2017-NMSC-017, ¶ 20. However, "[c]ourts must evaluate the considerations identified in Harper-culpability, prejudice, and lesser sanctions-when deciding whether to exclude a witness and must explain their decision to exclude or not to exclude a witness within the framework articulated in Harper." Id. (emphasis added).
5. Under our Supreme Court's holding in Le Mier, a district court is required "to not only weigh the degree of culpability and extent of prejudice, but also explain its decision regarding applicability of lesser sanctions on the record." State v. Lewis, 2018-NMCA-019, ¶ 12, 413 P.3d 484.
6. We have carefully reviewed the briefs, applicable law, and arguments made by the parties. We have also reviewed the entire record.
7. We conclude that the district court failed to provide on-the-record consideration of the availability of lesser sanctions. Although the district court's order contemplates the State's culpability and prejudice against both Defendant and the court, the order fails to consider a sanction lesser than exclusion. Similarly, the district court failed to provide a discussion in consideration of any lesser sanctions during the hearing in which it granted Defendant's motion.
8. Because the record in this case does not contain a discussion of the consideration of lesser available sanctions, the record is inadequate for this Court to determine whether the district court abused its discretion in imposing the extreme sanction of witness exclusion. See Lewis, 2018-NMCA-019, ¶ 12. Therefore, the exclusion of witnesses in this case "cannot presently be evaluated or justified by this Court, and we must reverse and remand the matter to the district court for further proceedings." Id.
9. We make no determination regarding whether total witness exclusion was an appropriate sanction in this case and reverse the district court's order and remand with instructions for the district court to reinstate the case for further consideration in light of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
WE CONCUR: GERALD E. BACA, Judge KATHERINE A. WRAY, Judge