State v. Serna, 305 P.3d 936

Defendant convicted of first‑degree murder and distribution of an imitation controlled substance under the Imitation Controlled Substances Act (ICSA) for selling baking soda packaged to look like cocaine.
State sought to introduce two prior convictions (possession of a controlled substance and credit card fraud) under ICSA § 30-31A-2(D)(5) as related to controlled substances or fraud.
Trial court admitted the prior convictions despite defense objection, relying on ICSA language rather than the Rules of Evidence.
Rule 11-404(B) and Rule 11-403 conflict with the ICSA; the court gave a limiting instruction restricting consideration to the ICSA charge.
Convictions included a sole eyewitness identification, a 911 recording, and physical ballistics linking the defendant to the crime; the jury verdict was for first‑degree murder.
On appeal, sentencing enhancements for habitual offender and firearm use were challenged as unauthorized in capital cases; the court remanded for amended sentencing while affirming the convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prior convictions may be admitted under ICSA and Rules of Evidence	State argues ICSA § 30-31A-2(D)(5) authorizes admission of priors related to substances or fraud.	Flores Serna contends the priors are inadmissible under Rule 11-404(B) and 11-403.	Admitting priors was error but harmless.
Whether admission of prior convictions affected the verdict	State maintains priors were probative and essential under ICSA.	Flores Serna asserts the priors were prejudicial and improper under evidence rules.	Harmless error; no reasonable probability the verdict was affected.
Whether sentencing enhancements were authorized in a capital case	State concedes enhancements may apply in context.	Enhancements for habitual offender and firearm use do not apply to capital felonies.	Enhancements improper; remand to correct sentencing.

State v. Belanger, 146 N.M. 357, 210 P.3d 783 (2009-NMSC-025) (Court has ultimate rule-making authority over procedure)
Ammerman v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc., 89 N.M. 307, 551 P.2d 1354 (1976) (state’s rulemaking authority over procedure)
State v. Lucero, 114 N.M. 489, 840 P.2d 1255 (Ct. App. 1992) (relevance and notice requirements for other-acts evidence)
State v. Gallegos, 2007-NMSC-007, 141 N.M. 185, 152 P.3d 828 (2007-NMSC-007) (cogent articulation of admissibility rationale for other-acts evidence)
State v. Kerby, 2005-NMCA-106, 138 N.M. 232, 118 P.3d 740 (2005-NMCA-106) (Rule 11-403 balancing for other-acts evidence)
State v. Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008, 275 P.3d 110 (2012-NMSC-008) (harmless error standard for non-constitutional evidentiary error)
State v. Elinski, 1997-NMCA-117, 124 N.M. 261, 948 P.2d 1209 (1997-NMCA-117) (necessity of legitimate alternative use of other-acts evidence)
State v. Mason, 79 N.M. 663, 448 P.2d 175 (Ct. App. 1968) (probative value of other-acts evidence must outweigh prejudice)
State v. Branch, 2010-NMSC-042, 148 N.M. 601, 241 P.3d 602 (2010-NMSC-042) (non-constitutional admissibility framework for evidentiary errors)
State v. Paiz, 2011-NMSC-008, 149 N.M. 412, 249 P.3d 1235 (2011-NMSC-008) (illegal sentences—jurisdiction to correct on appeal)