State v. Anaya, 35,559

Background

Defendant Steven Anaya was convicted of second-degree criminal sexual penetration of a child (13–18, force/coercion) and selling/giving alcohol to a minor.
Appellate court issued a proposed disposition to affirm; Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition and a motion to amend the docketing statement to add an issue about late-disclosed evidence.
Defense alleges existence of a lapel video or photographs not disclosed before trial; trial counsel recalls a motion for mistrial based on late disclosure but does not recall the specific evidence and does not believe it was a lapel video.
The alleged late disclosure was not detailed in the trial record, and trial counsel did not include it in the docketing statement.
District court allowed trial to proceed despite late witness interviews by the State (victim and family were hard to locate and interviewed days before trial); Defendant contends he had insufficient time to prepare and was prejudiced.
Appellate court considered whether the late disclosure/short notice and any Brady-type nondisclosure warranted relief and whether district court abused discretion in refusing extreme sanctions; court affirmed convictions and denied the motion to amend.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Motion to amend docketing statement to add claim about late-disclosed evidence (lapel video/photos)	State did not prejudice defendant by late disclosure; issue is speculative and not viable on this record	Late or non-disclosed lapel video may have contained exculpatory evidence and merits appellate review	Denied: claim too speculative on the existing record; better raised and developed in habeas corpus to establish facts and prejudice
Whether State violated discovery scheduling rule (LR2-400/LR2-308) by late witness interviews and whether district court abused discretion by proceeding	State explains delay caused by victim/family unavailability, not State’s culpable conduct; district court reasonably declined extreme sanctions	State could have located witnesses sooner; allowing trial so soon prejudiced defense (insufficient preparation time)	Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; Defendant failed to show specific prejudice warranting dismissal or exclusion
Whether short interval (3 days) between late interviews and trial prejudiced Defendant’s ability to investigate/impeach witnesses	No specific prejudice shown; mere assertion of prejudice insufficient	Insufficient time to investigate and prepare impeachment; prejudiced defense	Affirmed: Defendant did not demonstrate concrete avenues of investigation or specific prejudice
Sufficiency of evidence for convictions (sexual penetration; giving alcohol to minor)	Prosecution presented witnesses including victim and minor who testified; credibility for jury to resolve	Minor witness biased (sister was victim) and testimony insufficient	Affirmed: credibility is for the jury; evidence sufficient to support convictions

Key Cases Cited

State v. Allison, 11 P.3d 141 (N.M. 2000) (factors for reversal when state fails to disclose evidence; materiality, prejudice, and curative measures)
State v. Paredez, 101 P.3d 799 (N.M. 2004) (issues inadequately developed on direct appeal may be raised in habeas to develop facts)
State v. Balenquah, 208 P.3d 912 (N.M. Ct. App. 2009) (Brady rules apply where evidence is first disclosed after trial but not if disclosed during trial)
State v. Harper, 266 P.3d 25 (N.M. 2011) (abuse-of-discretion standard for sanctions and extreme remedies like dismissal/exclusion require showing prejudice and culpable conduct)
State v. Griffin, 866 P.2d 1156 (N.M. 1993) (witness credibility is jury province on appeal)
State v. Ibarra, 864 P.2d 302 (N.M. Ct. App. 1993) (extraordinary circumstances may justify ordering transcript while case on summary calendar)
State v. Rael, 668 P.2d 309 (N.M. Ct. App. 1983) (standards for amending docketing statement on appeal)
State v. Moore, 782 P.2d 91 (N.M. Ct. App. 1989) (issue raised on amendment must be viable to justify amendment)