camera hearing in New Mexico

2016See State v. Martinez, 1982-NMCA- 19 005, ¶ 11, 97 N.M. 316 , 639 P.2d 603 (“To invoke an in camera hearing under [Rule 15 1 11-510], [the] defendant is not required to specifically move for such a hearing; 2 however, [the] defendant is required to fairly invoke a ruling by the trial court as to 3 whether such a hearing should be held.

2016See State v. Martinez, 1982-NMCA- 19 005, ¶ 11, 97 N.M. 316 , 639 P.2d 603 (“To invoke an in camera hearing under [Rule 15 1 11-510], [the] defendant is not required to specifically move for such a hearing; 2 however, [the] defendant is required to fairly invoke a ruling by the trial court as to 3 whether such a hearing should be held.

2017See 16 State v. Lovato, 1993-NMCA-163 , ¶ 10, 117 N.M. 68 , 868 P.2d 1293 (finding no 17 abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to disclose 18 an informant’s identity where the defendant did not specifically explain how 19 testimony from the informant would have aided his defense of entrapment); see also 20 State v. Chandler, 1995-NMCA-033 , ¶¶ 19-25, 119 N.M. 727 , 895 P.2d 249 5 1 (affirming the district court’s decision not to hold an in camera hearing regarding the 2 identity of a confidential informant where the district court concluded that the ident

2017See 16 State v. Lovato, 1993-NMCA-163 , ¶ 10, 117 N.M. 68 , 868 P.2d 1293 (finding no 17 abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to disclose 18 an informant’s identity where the defendant did not specifically explain how 19 testimony from the informant would have aided his defense of entrapment); see also 20 State v. Chandler, 1995-NMCA-033 , ¶¶ 19-25, 119 N.M. 727 , 895 P.2d 249 5 1 (affirming the district court’s decision not to hold an in camera hearing regarding the 2 identity of a confidential informant where the district court concluded that the ident

2013The district court acknowledged this failure in its oral ruling on the motion and noted both at the hearing and in its order that “if new issues arise during trial, the [district c]ourt will review those issues at that time.” See Proper v. Mowry, 90 N.M. 710, 715 , 568 P.2d 236, 241 (Ct. App. 1977) (noting that a ruling on a motion in limine is “without prejudice to the right to offer proof [and possible introduction of the evidence] during the course of the trial”).

2013The district court acknowledged this failure in its oral ruling on the motion and noted both at the hearing and in its order that “if new issues arise during trial, the [district c]ourt will review those issues at that time.” See Proper v. Mowry, 90 N.M. 710, 715 , 568 P.2d 236, 241 (Ct. App. 1977) (noting that a ruling on a motion in limine is “without prejudice to the right to offer proof [and possible introduction of the evidence] during the course of the trial”).

2017See 16 State v. Lovato, 1993-NMCA-163 , ¶ 10, 117 N.M. 68 , 868 P.2d 1293 (finding no 17 abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to disclose 18 an informant’s identity where the defendant did not specifically explain how 19 testimony from the informant would have aided his defense of entrapment); see also 20 State v. Chandler, 1995-NMCA-033 , ¶¶ 19-25, 119 N.M. 727 , 895 P.2d 249 5 1 (affirming the district court’s decision not to hold an in camera hearing regarding the 2 identity of a confidential informant where the district court concluded that the ident

2017See 16 State v. Lovato, 1993-NMCA-163 , ¶ 10, 117 N.M. 68 , 868 P.2d 1293 (finding no 17 abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to disclose 18 an informant’s identity where the defendant did not specifically explain how 19 testimony from the informant would have aided his defense of entrapment); see also 20 State v. Chandler, 1995-NMCA-033 , ¶¶ 19-25, 119 N.M. 727 , 895 P.2d 249 5 1 (affirming the district court’s decision not to hold an in camera hearing regarding the 2 identity of a confidential informant where the district court concluded that the ident

2007See Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co. v. Eddings, 673 So.2d 131, 132 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1996) (per curiam) (remanding to the trial court with instructions to “conduct an in camera hearing and inspection of the manual in question or[,] alternatively!,] an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the manual is a trade secret”).

2007See Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co. v. Eddings, 673 So.2d 131, 132 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1996) (per curiam) (remanding to the trial court with instructions to "conduct an in camera hearing and inspection of the manual in question or[,] alternatively[,] an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the manual is a trade secret").

2018See State v. Johnson, 8 1997-NMSC-036, ¶ 20 , 123 N.M. 640 , 944 P.2d 869 (“Our statute and rule provide 9 for an in camera hearing to determine admissibility.”).

2018See State v. Johnson, 8 1997-NMSC-036, ¶ 20 , 123 N.M. 640 , 944 P.2d 869 (“Our statute and rule provide 9 for an in camera hearing to determine admissibility.”).

2018Rather, our review of the argument made during the motion hearing convinces us that [the d]efendants were on a fishing expedition. [The d]efendants made no showing that their rights would be violated but for full disclosure of the master file[.] 1993-NMCA-051 , ¶¶ 25-26, 115 N.M. 536 , 854 P.2d 363 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). {43} There are compelling arguments on appeal that in camera review of Joshua's military records could have been useful to locate material information, such as the identities of character witnesses who could have testified about Joshua's reputation f

2018Rather, our review of the argument made during the motion hearing convinces us that [the d]efendants were on a fishing expedition. [The d]efendants made no showing that their rights would be violated but for full disclosure of the master file[.] 1993-NMCA-051 , ¶¶ 25-26, 115 N.M. 536 , 854 P.2d 363 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). {43} There are compelling arguments on appeal that in camera review of Joshua's military records could have been useful to locate material information, such as the identities of character witnesses who could have testified about Joshua's reputation f

1986Evidence Rule 510(c)(2).” State v. Gallegos, 96 N.M. 54, 58 , 627 P.2d 1253, 1257 (Ct.App.1981).

1986Evidence Rule 510(c)(2).” State v. Gallegos, 96 N.M. 54, 58 , 627 P.2d 1253, 1257 (Ct.App.1981).

1976State v. Debarry, 86 N.M. 742 , 527 P.2d 505 (Ct.App.1974).

1976State v. Debarry, 86 N.M. 742 , 527 P.2d 505 (Ct.App.1974).

2025Harper, 2011-NMSC-044, ¶¶ 16-27 ; Le Mier, 2017-NMSC-017, ¶ 20 (“Courts must evaluate the considerations identified in Harper—culpability, prejudice, and lesser sanctions—when deciding whether to exclude a witness and must explain their decision to exclude or not to exclude a witness within the framework articulated in Harper.”).

2022Found. for Open Gov’t v. Corizon Health, 2020-NMCA-014, ¶ 23 , 460 P.3d 43 ; see id. (finding no abuse of discretion by the district court ruling without an in camera hearing).

2022Found. for Open Gov’t v. Corizon Health, 2020-NMCA-014, ¶ 23 , 460 P.3d 43 ; see id. (finding no abuse of discretion by the district court ruling without an in camera hearing).

2018See Piña, 2001-NMCA-055, ¶¶ 24, 28 (providing that the plaintiff “must provide a privilege log” and that the log, “together with any supplemental affidavits[,] must affirmatively demonstrate an objectively reasonable basis for each assertion of privilege[,]” but also explaining that the procedural guidelines for asserting a privilege “are not immutable” and that “[t]hey may be modified as required by the circumstances of a particular case”); see also Albuquerque Rape Crisis Ctr., 2005-NMSC-032, ¶ 21 (noting that the court may need to conduct an in camera inspection to determine whether certain

2018See Piña, 2001-NMCA-055, ¶¶ 24, 28 (providing that the plaintiff “must provide a privilege log” and that the log, “together with any supplemental affidavits[,] must affirmatively demonstrate an objectively reasonable basis for each assertion of privilege[,]” but also explaining that the procedural guidelines for asserting a privilege “are not immutable” and that “[t]hey may be modified as required by the circumstances of a particular case”); see also Albuquerque Rape Crisis Ctr., 2005-NMSC-032, ¶ 21 (noting that the court may need to conduct an in camera inspection to determine whether certain

2011See State v. Chandler, 119 12 N.M. 727 , 733, 895 P.2d 249, 255 (Ct. App. l995) (holding that the district court did 13 not err in denying disclosure of the CI’s identity when the charge against the 14 defendant was not based upon anything witnessed by the CI, but rather upon the 15 police officer’s observations and what they found during the search), holding modified 16 on other grounds by State v. Vargas, 2007-NMCA-006, ¶ 14 , 140 N.M. 864 , 149 P.3d 17 961 ; cf. Rule 11-510(A)(C) NMRA (providing an exception to the privilege to refuse 18 disclosure if a defendant can show in an in camera he

2011See State v. Chandler, 119 12 N.M. 727 , 733, 895 P.2d 249, 255 (Ct. App. l995) (holding that the district court did 13 not err in denying disclosure of the CI’s identity when the charge against the 14 defendant was not based upon anything witnessed by the CI, but rather upon the 15 police officer’s observations and what they found during the search), holding modified 16 on other grounds by State v. Vargas, 2007-NMCA-006, ¶ 14 , 140 N.M. 864 , 149 P.3d 17 961 ; cf. Rule 11-510(A)(C) NMRA (providing an exception to the privilege to refuse 18 disclosure if a defendant can show in an in camera he

2006Compare Ruiz, 2001-NMCA-097, ¶ 36 , 131 N.M. 241 , 34 P.3d 630 (requiring in camera review of medical records where such review was specifically requested below), with State v. Baca, 115 N.M. 536, 541-42 , 854 P.2d 363, 368-69 (Ct.App.1993) (rejecting a discovery challenge where the defendant failed to request in camera inspection of the disputed material).

2006Compare Ruiz, 2001-NMCA-097, ¶ 36 , 131 N.M. 241 , 34 P.3d 630 (requiring in camera review of medical records where such review was specifically requested below), with State v. Baca, 115 N.M. 536, 541-42 , 854 P.2d 363, 368-69 (Ct.App.1993) (rejecting a discovery challenge where the defendant failed to request in camera inspection of the disputed material).

1998See State v. Ortega, 112 N.M. 554, 574 , 817 P.2d 1196, 1216 (1991) (finding no abuse of discretion in denying disclosure, following an in camera hearing, where the information “was second- or third-hand hearsay, and nondisclosure was ordered in part out of concern for the safety of the informants”); State v. Lovato, 117 N.M. 68, 70 , 868 P.2d 1293, 1295 (Ct.App.1993) (finding no abuse of discretion in denying in camera hearing where the defendant failed to show that the Cl was an active participant in the crime in question).

1998See State v. Ortega, 112 N.M. 554, 574 , 817 P.2d 1196, 1216 (1991) (finding no abuse of discretion in denying disclosure, following an in camera hearing, where the information “was second- or third-hand hearsay, and nondisclosure was ordered in part out of concern for the safety of the informants”); State v. Lovato, 117 N.M. 68, 70 , 868 P.2d 1293, 1295 (Ct.App.1993) (finding no abuse of discretion in denying in camera hearing where the defendant failed to show that the Cl was an active participant in the crime in question).

1997See generally Johnson v. State, 332 Md. 456 , 632 A.2d 152, 160 (1993) (describing the responsibility for balancing as “entrusted in the first instance to the trial court” and suggesting the importance of showing “special relevance,” considering necessity and potential for prejudice).

1997See generally Johnson v. State, 332 Md. 456 , 632 A.2d 152, 160 (1993) (describing the responsibility for balancing as “entrusted in the first instance to the trial court” and suggesting the importance of showing “special relevance,” considering necessity and potential for prejudice).