State v. Lockwood
35,248
| N.M. Ct. App. | Mar 14, 2017Background
- Defendant convicted of methamphetamine trafficking (possession with intent to distribute) after police executed a search of a residence and seized crystal substance.
- On appeal in the summary calendar, this Court issued a proposed affirmance; defendant filed a memorandum in opposition and sought to amend the docketing statement to add a plain-error evidentiary claim.
- Defendant argued chain-of-custody discrepancies (number/handling of baggies and amount seized) and contested admission of evidence seized at the residence.
- Defendant moved to compel disclosure of a confidential informant, arguing late denial prejudiced her defense and claiming the CI might have been the actual dealer.
- Defendant also raised ineffective assistance, alleged prosecutorial misconduct in closing (commenting on absent witness), and cumulative error claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to amend docketing statement to add plain-error evidentiary claim | State implicitly argues motion was untimely or not viable because issues were not preserved and record is inadequate | Vanzi argues plain error as to chain-of-custody and amount discrepancies in seized baggies | Motion denied—issue not viable; conflicts in testimony were for the jury and failure to object deprived the record for review |
| Disclosure of confidential informant | State defends nondisclosure because charge based on search evidence, not CI transaction; identity not relevant | Vanzi argues late denial prejudiced defense and CI could have exculpated her as the dealer | Denial affirmed—no abuse of discretion; prejudice speculative and CI identity not shown to be relevant |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | State relies on calendar notice analysis; no new argument presented by defendant | Vanzi reiterates prior claims | Affirmed—defendant failed to point out errors in fact or law in response to calendar notice |
| Prosecutor's closing-comments (failure to call witness) | State contends comment on absent witness permissible and judge admonished against burden shifting | Vanzi contends comments impermissibly referenced matters outside evidence/shifts burden | Affirmed—comment permissible under precedent; admonition addressed burden-shift concerns |
| Cumulative error / Due process | State: no individual errors, so no cumulative error | Vanzi: cumulative effect violated due process | Rejected—no errors found, so no cumulative error |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Chandler, 119 N.M. 727, 895 P.2d 249 (N.M. Ct. App. 1995) (identity of informant not required disclosure where charges not based on informant transaction)
- State v. Gonzales, 112 N.M. 544, 817 P.2d 1186 (N.M. 1991) (prosecutor may comment on failure to call a witness during closing)
- State v. Hunter, 131 N.M. 76, 33 P.3d 296 (Ct. App. 2001) (matters not of record present no issue for appellate review)
- Hennessy v. Duryea, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 (Ct. App. 1998) (burden on appellant in summary calendar to clearly point out errors)
- State v. Cordova, 128 N.M. 390, 993 P.2d 104 (Ct. App. 1999) (appellate court bound by Supreme Court precedent on rule interpretation)
- State v. Bent, 328 P.3d 677 (N.M. Ct. App. 2013) (no cumulative error when no individual errors are found)