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

• In February 2009, the defendant was ordered to refrain from any contact with Sarah Myers for six months. Myers reported to the police that the defendant violated this order by sending her a series of text messages over three days in March 2009. Officer Mark Maycumber, who responded to Myers' call, reviewed the messages on Myers' phone, which were from an unknown number but contained information about the defendant and Myers' past relationship and the protective order. For unclear reasons, Maycumber had Myers transcribe the messages by hand. The defendant's identity as the sender was to be established at trial through this handwritten transcript (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• Metropolitan Court: The trial court admitted the handwritten transcript of text messages as evidence, leading to the defendant's conviction for violating the protective order.
• District Court of Bernalillo County, Judith K. Nakamura, District Judge: Affirmed the conviction (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the trial court erred in admitting secondary evidence (the handwritten transcript) to prove the contents of the text messages, violating the best evidence rule. Contended that the State failed to establish that the original messages were lost or destroyed without bad faith and that the error was not harmless. Also raised an alternative argument for a new trial based on prosecutorial misconduct, which was not reached due to the decision on the primary argument (paras 1, 4).
• Appellee (State): Argued that the handwritten transcript was admissible under an exception to the best evidence rule, claiming that the originals were lost or destroyed without bad faith. On appeal, the State incorrectly asserted that Myers and Officer Maycumber testified that Myers deleted the original text messages, a claim not supported by the record (paras 10, 15).

Legal Issues

• Whether the trial court erred in admitting secondary evidence (the handwritten transcript of text messages) in violation of the best evidence rule (para 1).
• Whether the State met its burden to establish that the original text messages were lost or destroyed without bad faith, thus invoking an exception to the best evidence rule (para 10).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s order affirming the defendant's conviction and remanded to the metropolitan court for a new trial (para 17).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge Linda M. Vanzi, with Judges M. Monica Zamora and J. Miles Hanisee concurring, found that the State failed to meet its burden under the best evidence rule to establish that the original text messages were lost or destroyed without bad faith. The court concluded that the handwritten transcript constituted secondary evidence and was improperly admitted, as there was no evidence presented that the messages were erased from the phone or that any effort was made to preserve or retrieve the original messages. The court also noted that the State's reliance on the content of the inadmissible transcript to link the defendant to the violation was not harmless, as it was the sole evidence of the defendant's alleged violation of the protective order. The lack of foundational evidence for the admission of the transcript under the "lost or destroyed" exception to the best evidence rule necessitated a new trial (paras 4-16).