State v. Schoonover, 31,093

Defendant Walker T. Schoonover was convicted in Bernalillo County District Court of homicide by vehicle and great bodily injury by vehicle, and he appeals the convictions.
The Court of Appeals issued an unpublished memorandum opinion; a docketing statement was challenged for not providing all required information under Rule 12-208 NMRA.
Appellate counsel contends trial counsel cannot recall certain facts, complicating the appellate record and calendar placement.
The panel chose to decide on the summary calendar and denied the motion to amend the docketing statement.
The court authorized consideration of the issues presented without remand, addressing arguments about the docketing statement and admissibility of specific evidence.
The court ultimately affirms the convictions, finding no reversible error in the challenged rulings, including expert and rebuttal testimony and alleged prosecutorial misconduct.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of civil settlement evidence	State argues exclusion was proper and not an abuse of discretion.	Schoonover contends admission would have shown lack of sole responsibility and been admissible.	No abuse; exclusion affirmed.
Ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to call an expert	State contends claims are not viable as presented on direct appeal.	Schoonover asserts trial counsel failed to call an expert and to attend interviews, compromising defense.	Claim not viable; denied."
Deputy Armijo's qualification as an accident-reconstruction expert	State relies on Armijo's training, certificates, and experience to support admissibility.	Defense questions the deputy's qualifications.	No abuse; trial court properly allowed expert testimony.
Admission of Elizabeth Mendez as a rebuttal witness	State used rebuttal to rebut defense claim; admissibility appropriate.	Mendez should have been disclosed and not used in rebuttal.	No abuse of discretion; rebuttal testimony properly admitted.
Prosecutorial misconduct in rebuttal closing	State argues closing argument did not deprive defendant of fair trial.	Schoonover asserts prosecutorial conduct shifted burden and violated fairness.	Not shown to have deprived fair trial; no reversible error.

State v. Sarracino, 125 N.M. 511 (1998) (abuse of discretion standard for admission of evidence)
Loverin v. Debusk, 114 N.M. 1 (Ct. App. 1992) (Rule 12-208 compliance and docketing statements; calendaring)
Udall v. Townsend, 126 N.M. 251 (1998) (summary calendar assignment when record supports issues)
Roybal, 114 N.M. 472 (Ct. App. 1992) (rebuttal testimony admissibility framework)
State v. Duffy, 126 N.M. 132 (1998) (prosecutorial misconduct standard; fair trial analysis)
State v. Gallegos, 141 N.M. 185 (2007) (prosecutorial misconduct framework; standard of review)