State v. Ballard, 1 N.M. Ct. App. 600

Ballard gave his laptop and two external hard drives to a coworker for software updates and later disclosed child pornography existed on the computer.
The coworker viewed the first file and informed police; the officer seized the computer and drives from the coworker’s possession.
Forensic analysis identified 25 files/images, forming the basis for 25 counts of possession of child pornography under Section 30-6A-3(A).
Bit-for-bit copies were created for forensic review, with Exhibits 1 and 2 consisting of the downloaded video and still images on two DVDs.
Defendant moved to suppress the contents found on the external drives; the district court denied the motion and trial proceeded.
The district court later sua sponte reconsidered and amended the sentence after an overnight reflection; conviction and sentence were appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether twenty-five counts merged as one unit of prosecution	Ballard—counts should be distinct due to multiple victims/times	Counts should merge into fewer counts under unit-of-prosecution doctrine	Counts should merge into five counts; twenty counts reversed
Whether suppression of data from external hard drive was proper	Evidence obtained lawfully via private search doctrine and subsequent seizure was valid	Warrantless viewing/seizure violated Fourth Amendment and NM Constitution	No Fourth Amendment violation; suppression denied
Apprendi applicability to number-of-victims determinations for sentencing	Number of victims could affect sentencing under Apprendi	Apprendi requires jury finding for any sentencing enhancement based on facts	Apprendi does not apply to this sentencing context
Corpus delicti requirement and admissibility of extrajudicial statements	DVDs and independent evidence establish corpus delicti	Corpus delicti not established due to lack of actual hard drive at trial	Corpus delicti established; statements admissible
Whether the district court properly sua sponte amended the sentence	Court had authority to reconsider sentence; no abuse of discretion	Overnight change lacking supporting circumstances constitutes error	No abuse of discretion; amendment permissible

State v. Rivera, 2010-NMSC-046 (NMSC 2010) (private search doctrine and Fourth Amendment privacy framework)
State v. Weisser, 2007-NMCA-015 (NMCA 2007) (corpus delicti requires independent proof beyond extrajudicial confessions)
State v. Leeson, 2011-NMCA-068 (NMCA 2011) (unit of prosecution in possession/production cases; distinctness factors)
State v. Olsson, 2008-NMCA-009 (NMCA 2008) (unit of prosecution unclear for possession under 30-6A-3(A))
State v. Bernal, 2006-NMSC-050 (NMSC 2006) (lenity guiding interpretation when legislative intent ambiguous)
Swafford v. State, 112 N.M. 3 (1991) (caution against overbroad judicial definitions of the same factual event)
State v. Gurule, 2011-NMCA-063 (NMCA 2011) (distinction in possession cases and victim-centric factors)
State v. Olivares? (as referenced), 2009-NMSC-015 (NMSC 2009) (distinctness and actus reus in possession cases involving digital files)
Midkiff v. Commonwealth, 286 Va. 216 (Va. 2010) (bit-for-bit copy admissibility as faithful replication)