N.M. R. Evid. 11-1006
The proponent may use a summary, chart, or calculation to prove the content of voluminous writings, recordings, or photographs that cannot be conveniently examined in court. The proponent must make the originals or duplicates available for examination or copying, or both, by other parties at a reasonable time and place. The court may order the proponent to produce them in court.
N.M. R. Evid. 11-1006
Committee commentary. - The language of Rule 11-1006 NMRA was amended in 2012 to be consistent with the restyling of the Federal Rules of Evidence, effective December 1, 2011, to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. There is no intent to change any result in any ruling on admissibility.
[Adopted by Supreme Court Order No. 12-8300-015, effective for all cases pending or filed on or after June 16, 2012.]
ANNOTATIONS The 2012 amendment, approved by Supreme Court Order No. 12-8300-015, effective for all cases pending or filed on or after June 16, 2012, modified the title of the rule and rewrote the rule to make stylistic changes. The 1993 amendment, effective December 1, 1993, substituted "court" for "judge" in the last sentence. Compiler's notes. - This rule is similar to Rule 1006 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Qualified person may testify in regard to summary of voluminous records which that person has examined without necessity of requiring records themselves to be in court. State v. Schrader, 1958-NMSC-056, 64 N.M. 100, 324 P.2d 1025 (decided before enactment of this rule). Foundation for summary. - An adequate foundation for admission of a summary was established by a witness who did not personally prepare the summary but who had a supervisory role and knowledge of how it was compiled. Cafeteria Operators v. Coronado - Santa Fe Assocs., 1998-NMCA-005, 124 N.M. 440, 952 P.2d 435. Proper authentication of summary. - An affidavit in support of the defendants' motion for summary judgment, in properly authenticating a summary of medical records relating to the issue raised by the pleadings, (i.e., indifference to a prisoner's medical needs), was admissible. Archuleta v. Goldman, 1987-NMCA-049, 107 N.M. 547, 761 P.2d 425. Evidentiary standard of proof. - The rationale of the United States Supreme Court in Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986), holding that the burden of proof at summary judgment proceedings is "clear and convincing evidence," rather than the preponderance of the evidence standard, has not been adopted in New Mexico. Bartlett v. Mirabal, 2000-NMCA-036, 128 N.M. 830, 999 P.2d 1062. Material which is not summary is not subject to availability requirement. - Evidence supports trial court's ruling that statistical evidence relating to quality of seller's goods over two-year period was not a summary and, therefore, not subject to requirement that originals be made available. Kirk Co. v. Ashcraft, 1984-NMSC-065, 101 N.M. 462, 684 P.2d 1127. Complaining party must object at trial or be prejudiced by testimony. - Reversal of embezzlement conviction was not proper where no showing was made that defendant ever sought ruling of trial court on matter of primary accounting records or that defendant was actually prejudiced in any sense because records were not actually introduced into evidence. State v. Peke, 1962-NMSC-033, 70 N.M. 108, 371 P.2d 226, cert. denied, 371 U.S. 924, 83 S. Ct. 293, 9 L. Ed. 2d 232 (decided before enactment of this rule). Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. - 29A Am. Jur. 2d Evidence § 1059 et seq. Admissibility of evidence summaries under Uniform Evidence Rule 1006, 59 A.L.R.4th 971. Admissibility of summaries of writings, recordings, or photographs under Rule 1006 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, 50 A.L.R. Fed. 319. 32A C.J.S. Evidence §§ 873, 876, 877, 878, 1027, 1035, 1041.