State v. Patterson
33,961
| N.M. Ct. App. | Feb 27, 2017Background
- Defendant Anthony Patterson was tried for two counts of trafficking oxycodone based solely on testimony from an undercover narcotics agent and a confidential informant (the informant did not testify).
- The agent testified to two transactions in which Patterson allegedly sold five oxycodone pills each time; in one transaction Patterson received a computer projector as payment.
- On cross-examination defense counsel sought to ask the undercover agent about an alleged prior instance in a different case where the agent admitted under oath that a police report contained misrepresentations.
- The State objected; the district court sustained the objection without on-the-record analysis and prevented the cross-examination under Rule 11-608(B).
- The jury convicted Patterson and the court ordered, among other conditions of probation, return of the projector; Patterson appealed arguing the cross-examination limitation (and other claims), and the Court of Appeals reversed on the evidentiary ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred by excluding cross-examination about a specific prior untruthful act by the undercover agent under Rule 11-608(B) | The excluded inquiry was irrelevant and constituted improper impeachment or prior-bad-act evidence (invoking Rule 11-404(B)) | The inquiry probed a specific instance of untruthfulness that was directly probative of the agent’s character for truthfulness and therefore permitted under Rule 11-608(B)(1) | Reversed: exclusion was an abuse of discretion; the prior-untruthfulness inquiry was admissible and the district court improperly curtailed cross-examination |
| Whether exclusion could be upheld under Rule 11-403 (balancing probative value vs. prejudice, confusion, delay) | The evidence was prejudicial or distracting and properly excluded (argued below) | The evidence was highly probative because the agent’s credibility was central; no record showing Rule 11-403 was applied or that the inquiry lacked good-faith basis | Rejected: record contains no Rule 11-403 analysis; probative value outweighed asserted dangers; exclusion was not justified |
| Whether the evidentiary error was harmless | (State on appeal did not argue harmlessness) | Exclusion likely affected verdict because the State’s case depended on the single witness | Rejected as harmless: error was not harmless; reasonable probability it contributed to conviction |
| Whether a constitutional confrontation violation was established | (State did not defend on merits) | Defendant did not press constitutional claim because court resolved under evidentiary rules | Court did not reach constitutional question; limited decision to evidentiary abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Rojo, 126 N.M. 438 (N.M. 1999) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings and abuse of discretion)
- State v. Balderama, 135 N.M. 329 (N.M. 2004) (relevance standard: evidence reflecting on witness credibility is relevant)
- State v. Tollardo, 275 P.3d 110 (N.M. 2012) (harmless error and reasonable-probability test for evidentiary error)
- Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (U.S. 1974) (cross-examination is the principal means to test witness credibility)
- Baum v. Orosco, 106 N.M. 265 (N.M. Ct. App. 1987) (prior untruthfulness by officer probative of credibility)