AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant appealed the district court's decision which affirmed the metropolitan court's denial of his motion to suppress or, alternatively, his request for an adverse inference instruction related to non-collected evidence or the suppression of the officer's testimony. The appeal was based on the officer's failure to record the entirety of his interaction with the Defendant.

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: Affirmed the metropolitan court's decision denying the Defendant's motion to suppress or request for an adverse inference instruction.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the trial court erred by denying an adverse inference for non-collected evidence or by denying suppression of the officer’s testimony, citing the officer's failure to record the entirety of the interaction with the Defendant.
• Appellee: Supported the lower courts' decisions, arguing against the Defendant's appeal for suppression of evidence or an adverse inference instruction.

Legal Issues

• Whether the trial court erred by denying an adverse inference for non-collected evidence.
• Whether the trial court erred by denying suppression of the officer’s testimony based on the officer's failure to record the entirety of his interaction with the Defendant.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, which had affirmed the metropolitan court's denial of the Defendant's motion to suppress or request for an adverse inference instruction.

Reasons

• Per M. Monica Zamora, Chief Judge, concurred by Jacqueline R. Medina, Judge, and Megan P. Duffy, Judge: The Court considered the Defendant's memorandum in opposition but found it unpersuasive, deciding to affirm the lower courts' decisions. The Defendant did not present any new facts, laws, or arguments that could persuade the Court to reverse the district court's memorandum opinion. The decision to affirm was based on the adherence to the principle that a party responding to a summary calendar notice must specifically point out errors of law and fact, and merely repeating earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement (paras 1-4).