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 was charged with careless driving and driving on a suspended license. A district court scheduling order mandated that witness interviews be completed by a specific date. However, four officers did not appear for scheduled interviews on October 9, 2013, leading the district court to exclude three of them as witnesses, including the officer who filed the criminal complaint (para 3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State): Argued that the district court erred in excluding three State witnesses for failing to appear for pre-trial interviews, contending that there was no showing of bad faith or especially culpable conduct by the State that would justify such sanctions (para 3).
• Defendant-Appellee: Contended that the State's failure to ensure the presence of witnesses for pre-trial interviews constituted intransigence that satisfied the standard for exclusion of witnesses as set forth in State v. Harper, arguing that this failure prejudiced the Defendant's case (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's order excluding three State witnesses for failure to appear for pre-trial interviews was justified under the standard established in State v. Harper.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's order excluding witnesses (para 4).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with an opinion authored by Judge M. Monica Zamora and concurrence from Judges Michael D. Bustamante and Michael E. Vigil, held that the district court erred in excluding the State's witnesses. The Court found that the State's conduct did not rise to the level of intransigence or bad faith required by State v. Harper to justify the exclusion of witnesses. It was noted that two officers no longer worked for the Isleta police and another claimed not to have received notice, indicating a lack of bad faith. Furthermore, the Court considered the claim of prejudice to the Defendant as speculative, pointing out that the Defendant was aware of the basic facts of the incident and would not be blindsided by the late discovery of information from the officers (paras 2-4).