State v. Harper
150 N.M. 745
N.M.2011Background
- Harper indicted on fifteen counts of criminal sexual penetration of a child under 13.
- District court imposed a January 19, 2007 deadline to interview key witnesses (victim and Dr. Ornelas) but no formal order was entered.
- Victim and Dr. Ornelas were not interviewed; the State sought extensions and attempted subpoenas where feasible.
- District court excluded both witnesses from testifying after finding noncompliance and prejudice, preventing a prima facie case.
- Court of Appeals reversed as to the victim and affirmed as to Dr. Ornelas; NM Supreme Court reversed for Dr. Ornelas and remanded for proceedings consistent with its opinion.
- State’s conduct was not wholly in bad faith; the Supreme Court held exclusion of witnesses was an abuse of discretion and a less severe sanction should have been chosen.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was exclusion of witnesses proper sanction for discovery violation? | Harper | State | No; abuse of discretion; required intentional violation and prejudice via lesser sanctions. |
| Did State’s conduct constitute intentional violation or mere negligence? | State | Harper | Not intentional; not sufficiently culpable to justify extreme sanction. |
| Was prejudice shown to Harper to justify exclusion? | Harper | State | Prejudice not established; delay not shown to be material or prejudicial. |
| Should the court have imposed a lesser sanction or remanded rather than exclude? | Harper | State | Yes; lesser sanctions appropriate; exclusion reversed as to Dr. Ornelas and victim remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bartlett, 109 N.M. 679, 789 P.2d 627 (Ct.App.1990) (sanctions must be proportionate to prejudice; extreme sanctions rare)
- State v. Lopez, 2011-NMSC-035, 150 N.M. 179, 258 P.3d 458 (N.M.) (establishes prejudice and culpability framework for discovery sanctions)
- State v. Chouinard, 96 N.M. 658, 634 P.2d 680 (N.M.) (disclosure failures weighed against prejudice and culpability)
- State v. Ortiz, 2009-NMCA-092, 146 N.M. 873, 215 P.3d 811 (Ct.App.2009) (intentional rejection of court order supports dismissal sanction)
- State v. Layne, 2008-NMCA-103, 144 N.M. 574, 189 P.3d 707 (Ct.App.2008) (exclusion proper where State acted with intransigence; bad faith focus)