Opinion
NO. 34,413
12-03-2015
STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DARREN LOUIS JAMES, Defendant-Appellant
Hector J. Balderas, Attorney General Santa Fe, NM for Appellee Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender Sergio Viscoli, Appellate Defender B. Douglas Wood III, Assistant Appellate Defender Santa Fe, NM for Appellant
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CURRY COUNTY
Stephen K. Quinn, District Judge Hector J. Balderas, Attorney General
Santa Fe, NM for Appellee Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender
Sergio Viscoli, Appellate Defender
B. Douglas Wood III, Assistant Appellate Defender
Santa Fe, NM for Appellant
MEMORANDUM OPINION
ZAMORA, Judge. {1} Defendant appeals his conviction for failure to appear. We issued a calendar notice proposing to affirm. Defendant has responded with a memorandum in opposition. We affirm. {2} In this appeal, Defendant has claimed that the district court wrongfully excluded evidence relating to his mental illness, which he claimed was the cause of his failure to appear. We review the district court's ruling for an abuse of discretion. See State v. Harper, 2011-NMSC-044, ¶ 16, 150 N.M. 745, 266 P.3d 25. "An abuse of discretion is found when the trial court's decision is contrary to logic and reason." Davila v. Bodelson, 1985-NMCA-072, ¶ 12, 103 N.M. 243, 704 P.2d 1119. {3} Defendant sought the admission of the testimony of Kim Devou, who had treated Defendant for his mental illness. [MIO 1] There is no question that Defendant's proffered evidence was relevant to his defense. See State v. Balderama, 2004-NMSC-008, ¶ 41, 135 N.M. 329, 88 P.3d 845 (concluding that the exclusion of testimony that made the defendant's theory of the case and lack of requisite intent more probable was not harmless error). However, in this case there was a late disclosure of this witness and exhibits relating to her testimony. See Rule 5-502 NMRA. Specifically, on the day of trial, the State objected, stating that the witness had "just" been disclosed, and they would need to get their own expert if she was going to testify in great detail. [RP 145] The district court allowed the expert to testify, but limited her testimony to her clinical observations during the last five sessions she had seen Defendant. [RP 149] The court also excluded exhibits relating to his medications, because this would have triggered the need for the State to procure its own expert. [RP 149] The expert then testified about her clinical observations of Defendant in the period preceding the date he failed to appear. [RP 151] {4} Defendant's memorandum in opposition refers us to Harper, 2011-NMSC-044, for the proposition that exclusion of a witness for violation of a discovery order is generally too extreme of a sanction. [MIO 6] However, Harper involved the complete exclusion of two witnesses. Id. ¶ 1. In contrast, the witness here was allowed to testify to matters relating to the core of Defendant's defense—that Defendant had a mental illness that prevented him from forming the requisite intent in this case. As such, we conclude that it was not an abuse of discretion to limit further evidence under these circumstances. See State v. McDaniel, 2004-NMCA-022, ¶ 6, 135 N.M. 84, 84 P.3d 701 (stating that remedies for violation of discovery rules or orders are discretionary with the trial court). {5} For the reasons set forth above, we affirm.
{6} IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ _________
M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge
WE CONCUR:
/s/ _________
RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge /s/ _________
LINDA M. VANZI, Judge