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-Appellant, Joclyn Telles, was convicted for battery on a police officer. The conviction stemmed from an incident leading to her arrest and subsequent trial. During the trial, there were disputes over the admissibility of expert witness testimony and the exclusion of two potential witnesses as a discovery sanction.

Procedural History

• APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY, Stephen Bridgforth, District Judge: Conviction for battery on a police officer.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in excluding the testimony of an expert witness, claiming it was relevant and could assist the jury. Additionally, challenged the exclusion of two potential witnesses as a discovery sanction, asserting that their testimony had probative value.
• Appellee: Defended the district court's decisions on both the exclusion of the expert witness, on the basis that the witness could not render an opinion that would assist the jury, and the exclusion of two potential witnesses due to the Appellant's failure to facilitate interviews despite numerous continuances.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in excluding the testimony of an expert witness.
• Whether the district court erred in excluding two potential witnesses as a discovery sanction.

Disposition

• The conviction for battery on a police officer is affirmed.

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, J., with Jonathan B. Sutin, J., and Roderick T. Kennedy, J., concurring: The Court found that the exclusion of the expert witness's testimony was within the district court's discretion, as the witness was unable to render an opinion that would be relevant or of assistance to the jury. Regarding the exclusion of two potential witnesses as a discovery sanction, the Court concluded that this was reasonable and appropriate due to the Appellant's failure to facilitate interviews despite numerous continuances and the speculative nature of the witnesses' testimony. The Appellant's memorandum in opposition did not provide substantive arguments or authority to alter the Court's assessment on these issues.