State v. Garcia, 35,184

Defendant Valentin Garcia faced criminal charges; district court dismissed the case with prejudice as a sanction for the State’s untimely production of scientific bench notes used to identify a controlled substance.
Local rule LR2-308(G)(4)(a)(viii) (formerly LR2-400) required production 120 or 90 days before trial; the State produced the bench notes 84 days before trial.
The district court imposed the severe sanctions of excluding the evidence and dismissing with prejudice based on that deadline violation.
The State appealed the dismissal; this Court issued a proposed summary disposition to reverse, and Defendant opposed.
The Court of Appeals concluded the district court abused its discretion because the record lacked findings that the State acted intentionally, that Defendant suffered specific prejudice, or that the court considered lesser sanctions as required by controlling precedent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether LR2-308 conflicts with controlling case law limiting severe sanctions	State: District court must follow local rule but sanctions must conform to case law	Garcia: Harper conflicts with the local rule and should be inapplicable	The Court: No conflict; Harper remains applicable and limits imposition of the most severe sanctions
Whether dismissal with prejudice was appropriate for the late production of bench notes	State: Sanction under local rule was permissible for discovery deadline violation	Garcia: Severe sanction appropriate given discovery and other alleged violations	Court: Reversed — dismissal with prejudice was an abuse of discretion because prerequisites (intent, prejudice, consideration of lesser sanctions) were not shown
Whether other alleged discovery violations could justify affirming dismissal	State: Only the bench-note delay was the basis for dismissal	Garcia: Additional violations (witness availability, transport) warrant affirmance	Court: Declined to consider those alleged violations because they were not developed below and were not the grounds for dismissal
Standard for reviewing sanction sufficiency	State: Local rule prescribes sanction; deference to trial court	Garcia: Deference should allow dismissal	Court: Trial court must apply Harper factors; without findings the severe sanction cannot stand

State v. Harper, 266 P.3d 25 (2011-NMSC-044) (severe sanctions improper absent intentional noncompliance, prejudice, and consideration of lesser sanctions)
State v. Ortiz, 215 P.3d 811 (2009-NMCA-092) (appellate court declines to consider arguments not developed below)