State v. Imperial
2017 NMCA 40
| N.M. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 2010 APD investigated alleged check fraud at a Wal‑Mart; Certegy (a check‑verification vendor) provided transaction data (dates, times, account/check numbers, SSNs, names) used to target specific transactions.
- Detective Chambers obtained Wal‑Mart money‑center surveillance video for dates tied to those transactions; videos showed defendant presenting checks and a computer‑generated date/time graphic overlay.
- Certegy investigator Jacobson compiled a large spreadsheet earlier disclosed in discovery; shortly before trial Jacobson became unavailable and the State substituted Certegy investigator Michael Baracz, who produced a redacted six‑record spreadsheet and a 37‑record spreadsheet derived from the same data.
- Defense moved to exclude Baracz, the spreadsheets, and the Wal‑Mart videos based on late disclosure, hearsay, authentication/chain‑of‑custody, and Confrontation Clause concerns; the district court admitted Baracz’s testimony, the business‑record exhibits, and the videos.
- Defendant was convicted on three counts each of forgery and identity theft; on appeal the court reviewed (1) whether admission of the Certegy spreadsheets/testimony and (2) the Wal‑Mart surveillance videos was erroneous, including Confrontation Clause issues.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Imperial's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Certegy spreadsheets (hearsay / business‑record) | Spreadsheets are business records under Rule 11‑803(6); data were recorded in real time and compiled from those records for trial | Spreadsheets were created/assembled for prosecution and thus inadmissible hearsay or summaries requiring Rule 11‑1006 formality | Admissible: each line is an original business record stored at transaction time; compilation/redaction for trial does not defeat Rule 803(6) admissibility |
| Late disclosure / discovery sanctions for substitution of records custodian | Substitution of one Certegy records custodian for another was functionally equivalent; defense had opportunity to interview Baracz and had the underlying data earlier | Late notice undermined preparation and implicates confrontation and sanction rules | No prejudice shown; denial of exclusion not an abuse of discretion; no preserved argument for lesser sanctions |
| Authentication and chain of custody of Wal‑Mart surveillance video (including date/time overlay) | Wal‑Mart loss‑prevention witness and detective provided sufficient foundation: system operates continuously, remote time‑stamp programming, local employees cannot alter, videos downloaded for requested dates/times | Time/date graphics inadequately shown to be reliable; chain of custody gaps; possible tampering not excluded | Authentication and admissibility satisfied under Rule 11‑901 ("silent witness"/ordinary computer operation); gaps affect weight not admissibility; no abuse of discretion |
| Confrontation Clause re: computer‑generated date/time stamps on videos | Surveillance footage and business records are non‑testimonial; primary purpose of Wal‑Mart system is loss prevention, not to create evidence for prosecution | The date/time stamps are testimonial and their admission without prior cross‑examination violated Sixth Amendment | Not testimonial here; defendant did not show the system’s primary purpose was to create trial records; Confrontation Clause not implicated |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (statements testimonial only where primary purpose is to create record for prosecution)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (Confrontation Clause requires cross‑examination for testimonial forensic reports)
- United States v. Keck, 643 F.3d 789 (in ESI context, the business record is the underlying datum, not the printout format)
- People v. Goldsmith, 326 P.3d 239 (refusing to impose greater authentication burdens on digital images because they can theoretically be manipulated)