State v. Navarro-Calzadillas
2017 NMCA 34
| N.M. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Armando Navarro-Calzadillas was indicted in March 2014 on sexual-offense charges; the case was placed on the Second Judicial District Court’s special calendar (LR2-400.1).
- The special calendar imposed a pretrial witness-interview deadline (parties agreed it was Feb 13, 2015) and required mandatory sanctions for scheduling/discovery violations.
- The State sought a short extension after scheduling difficulties and late disclosure of a therapist’s name; the district court denied the extension.
- Defense moved to exclude any witnesses the State had not interviewed by the deadline; the district court granted exclusion under the special calendar rule.
- The State appealed, arguing the exclusion conflicted with New Mexico Supreme Court precedent limiting exclusion as a sanction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the special calendar rule permits mandatory exclusion of un-interviewed witnesses | Special calendar requires sanctions for violations; district court may exclude witnesses for missed deadlines | Harper and related precedent limit exclusion to cases showing intentional noncompliance, prejudice, and consideration of lesser sanctions | Harper still applies; district court abused discretion by excluding witnesses without applying Harper’s three-part test |
| Whether the special calendar rule overrides existing Supreme Court discovery-sanction standards | Rule’s textual directives can supersede prior case law where not conflicting | Rule conflicts with statewide criminal-procedure rules and Harper’s limits | Court declines to overturn Harper; local rule must be applied in harmony with Harper when lesser sanctions suffice |
| Appropriate lesser sanctions available when State misses deadlines | Exclusion needed to enforce rule’s deadlines and deter violations | Dismissal without prejudice or other remedies can remedy the violation without excluding witnesses | Dismissal without prejudice (or other lesser sanctions) is available and may satisfy the rule while preserving Harper protections |
| Whether reversal required and remand instructions | Exclusion was proper under the rule’s mandatory-sanctions language | District court failed to consider Harper factors; reversal required | Reversed and remanded for consideration of Harper criteria and imposition of an appropriate sanction |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Harper, 150 N.M. 745, 266 P.3d 25 (N.M. 2011) (exclusion of witnesses requires intentional refusal to comply with a court order, prejudice to the opposing party, and consideration of less severe sanctions)
- Wilde v. Westland Dev. Co., 148 N.M. 627, 241 P.3d 628 (N.M. Ct. App. 2010) (standard for abuse of discretion review)
- N.M. Right to Choose/NARAL v. Johnson, 127 N.M. 654, 986 P.2d 450 (N.M. 1999) (abuse of discretion includes decisions premised on misapprehension of law)