State v. Lewis, 35,307

Damon Lewis was indicted for shoplifting and conspiracy; scheduling order set discovery and pretrial motion deadlines and trial for Nov 2015.
LR2-400.1 required disclosure of documentary and audio/video evidence and a continuing duty to disclose; sanctions "shall" be imposed for violations.
Defendant filed a (late) motion to dismiss or suppress after discovering police had not produced recorded photo-array identification videos.
The State admitted violating LR2-400.1 and produced recordings only a day or two before trial; it argued a speed letter had been provided and that lesser sanctions were available under State v. Harper.
The district court dismissed the case with prejudice for the State’s discovery violation without an on-record analysis of culpability, prejudice, and lesser sanctions.
The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, concluding the district court failed to explain how it considered the Harper factors as clarified by State v. Le Mier.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Lewis)	Held
Whether dismissal with prejudice was a proper sanction for LR2-400.1 discovery violation	LR2-400.1 was violated but district court could impose lesser sanctions under Harper; dismissal was within discretion	Severe sanction appropriate given violation and late production	Reversed and remanded: district court failed to explain consideration of culpability, prejudice, and lesser sanctions per Harper/Le Mier
Whether a speed letter satisfied LR2-400.1 production requirement	Speed letter plus access to evidence satisfied discovery obligations	Rule requires production of physical copies in addition to a speed letter	Held for Lewis: speed letter did not satisfy LR2-400.1; State failed to produce required copies timely
Whether Defendant’s untimely motion to dismiss could be considered after motions deadline	District court should not impose dismissal based on a late motion after deadline	Motion allowed; courts may impose sanctions regardless of motions deadline to prevent gamesmanship	Court rejected State’s argument—LR2-400.1 does not bar post-deadline sanctions motions; district court may consider sanctions despite motions deadline

State v. Harper, 150 N.M. 745 (N.M. 2011) (sets Harper framework: consider culpability, prejudice, and lesser sanctions before excluding witnesses or imposing severe discovery sanctions)
State v. Le Mier, 394 P.3d 959 (N.M. 2017) (clarifies Harper: courts must evaluate and explain on the record how Harper factors were considered; broad discretion remains but explanation required)