Chouinard test in New Mexico

2013Factors to consider in applying the test “include the presence of negligence or bad faith on the part of the state, the importance of the evidence to the defendant’s case, and the amount of other evidence of guilt adduced at trial.” State v. Bartlett, 109 N.M. 679, 680 , 789 P.2d 627, 628 (Ct. App. 1990). {24} In the case before us, we focus on the first and third Chouinard factors.

2013Factors to consider in applying the test “include the presence of negligence or bad faith on the part of the state, the importance of the evidence to the defendant’s case, and the amount of other evidence of guilt adduced at trial.” State v. Bartlett, 109 N.M. 679, 680 , 789 P.2d 627, 628 (Ct. App. 1990). {24} In the case before us, we focus on the first and third Chouinard factors.

2013See Bartlett, 109 N.M. at 681 , 789 P.2d at 629 (holding that a tape recorded statement made to investigators after the incident in which the alleged victim described the perpetrator was material because it bore on the credibility of the alleged victim); see also Smith v. Cain,__ U.S. 132 S. Ct. 627, 629-30 (2012) (holding that notes from the investigating investigator that the only eyewitness could not describe the perpetrator was material).

2013See Bartlett, 109 N.M. at 681 , 789 P.2d at 629 (holding that a tape recorded statement made to investigators after the incident in which the alleged victim described the perpetrator was material because it bore on the credibility of the alleged victim); see also Smith v. Cain,__ U.S. 132 S. Ct. 627, 629-30 (2012) (holding that notes from the investigating investigator that the only eyewitness could not describe the perpetrator was material).

2020See also State v. Chouinard, 1981- NMSC-096, ¶ 16, 96 N.M. 658 , 634 P.2d 680 (discussing New Mexico’s “three-part test to determine whether deprivation of evidence is reversible error”). [CN 4-5] Thus, we concluded that Defendant’s argument was that the district court abused its discretion by not ordering the remedy that Defendant thought most appropriate. [CN 4] We suggested that Defendant had not demonstrated that the district court erred in assessing the Chouinard factors in determining the remedy most appropriate in Defendant’s case. [CN 5] {4} Now, Defendant argues that the district cour

2020See also State v. Chouinard, 1981- NMSC-096, ¶ 16, 96 N.M. 658 , 634 P.2d 680 (discussing New Mexico’s “three-part test to determine whether deprivation of evidence is reversible error”). [CN 4-5] Thus, we concluded that Defendant’s argument was that the district court abused its discretion by not ordering the remedy that Defendant thought most appropriate. [CN 4] We suggested that Defendant had not demonstrated that the district court erred in assessing the Chouinard factors in determining the remedy most appropriate in Defendant’s case. [CN 5] {4} Now, Defendant argues that the district cour

1994See, e.g., Scoggins v. State, 111 N.M. 122, 123-24 , 802 P.2d 631, 632-33 (1990) (applying the Chouinard test where the State lost various evidence of a methamphetamine lab); State v. Fero, 107 N.M. 369, 370-71 , 758 P.2d 783, 784-85 (1988) (applying the three-part test where evidence was removed from the crime scene by the police and later lost a few days before trial); State v. Boeglin, 105 N.M. 247, 254 , 731 P.2d 943, 950 (1987) (the three-part test applied where the defendant claimed that the State withheld an original tape containing exculpatory evidence, thus depriving him of evidence);

1994See, e.g., Scoggins v. State, 111 N.M. 122, 123-24 , 802 P.2d 631, 632-33 (1990) (applying the Chouinard test where the State lost various evidence of a methamphetamine lab); State v. Fero, 107 N.M. 369, 370-71 , 758 P.2d 783, 784-85 (1988) (applying the three-part test where evidence was removed from the crime scene by the police and later lost a few days before trial); State v. Boeglin, 105 N.M. 247, 254 , 731 P.2d 943, 950 (1987) (the three-part test applied where the defendant claimed that the State withheld an original tape containing exculpatory evidence, thus depriving him of evidence);

2024See State v. Redd, 2013-NMCA-089, ¶¶ 26-28 , 308 P.3d 1000 (declining to overturn the district court’s finding that evidence was material, under a Chouinard analysis, merely “because its only purpose was to impeach [the v]ictim’s testimony and challenge her credibility” when the victim was “a crucial or critical witness”); State v. Huerta-Castro, 2017-NMCA-026, ¶¶ 31, 40, 45-47 , 390 P.3d 185 (determining, under an analysis pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), that evidence was material because it could be used to impeach a witness who played a “central role” in the state’s case)

2024See State v. Redd, 2013-NMCA-089, ¶¶ 26-28 , 308 P.3d 1000 (declining to overturn the district court’s finding that evidence was material, under a Chouinard analysis, merely “because its only purpose was to impeach [the v]ictim’s testimony and challenge her credibility” when the victim was “a crucial or critical witness”); State v. Huerta-Castro, 2017-NMCA-026, ¶¶ 31, 40, 45-47 , 390 P.3d 185 (determining, under an analysis pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), that evidence was material because it could be used to impeach a witness who played a “central role” in the state’s case)

2013In New Mexico, regardless of whether a due process 11 claim involving the preservation of evidence arises under the federal constitution or 12 under New Mexico’s Constitution, the Chouinard test governs the courts’ analysis. 13 See State v. Riggs, 1992-NMSC-057 , ¶¶ 7-12, 114 N.M. 358 , 838 P.2d 975 (using the 14 Chouinard test to evaluate the defendant’s claim, pursuant to the federal and state 15 constitutions, that he was deprived due process because the prosecution lost physical 16 evidence “that could have cast doubt on his involvement in” a crime).

2013In New Mexico, regardless of whether a due process 11 claim involving the preservation of evidence arises under the federal constitution or 12 under New Mexico’s Constitution, the Chouinard test governs the courts’ analysis. 13 See State v. Riggs, 1992-NMSC-057 , ¶¶ 7-12, 114 N.M. 358 , 838 P.2d 975 (using the 14 Chouinard test to evaluate the defendant’s claim, pursuant to the federal and state 15 constitutions, that he was deprived due process because the prosecution lost physical 16 evidence “that could have cast doubt on his involvement in” a crime).

2024See State v. Redd, 2013-NMCA-089, ¶¶ 26-28 , 308 P.3d 1000 (declining to overturn the district court’s finding that evidence was material, under a Chouinard analysis, merely “because its only purpose was to impeach [the v]ictim’s testimony and challenge her credibility” when the victim was “a crucial or critical witness”); State v. Huerta-Castro, 2017-NMCA-026, ¶¶ 31, 40, 45-47 , 390 P.3d 185 (determining, under an analysis pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), that evidence was material because it could be used to impeach a witness who played a “central role” in the state’s case)

2024See State v. Redd, 2013-NMCA-089, ¶¶ 26-28 , 308 P.3d 1000 (declining to overturn the district court’s finding that evidence was material, under a Chouinard analysis, merely “because its only purpose was to impeach [the v]ictim’s testimony and challenge her credibility” when the victim was “a crucial or critical witness”); State v. Huerta-Castro, 2017-NMCA-026, ¶¶ 31, 40, 45-47 , 390 P.3d 185 (determining, under an analysis pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), that evidence was material because it could be used to impeach a witness who played a “central role” in the state’s case)

2021See State v. Branch, 2018-NMCA-031 , ¶¶ 49, 52, 54, 417 P.3d 1141 (concluding, in light of “[t]he mere possibility that an item of undisclosed information might have helped the defense, or might have affected the outcome of the trial,” that the district court did not err in denying the defendant’s request for a lost-evidence jury instruction (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); State v. Duarte, 2007-NMCA-012, ¶ 11 , 140 N.M. 930 , 149 P.3d 1027 (holding there was no in this context can refer to a prosecutor’s representations regarding the existence of evidence, as opposed to the s

2021See State v. Branch, 2018-NMCA-031 , ¶¶ 49, 52, 54, 417 P.3d 1141 (concluding, in light of “[t]he mere possibility that an item of undisclosed information might have helped the defense, or might have affected the outcome of the trial,” that the district court did not err in denying the defendant’s request for a lost-evidence jury instruction (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); State v. Duarte, 2007-NMCA-012, ¶ 11 , 140 N.M. 930 , 149 P.3d 1027 (holding there was no in this context can refer to a prosecutor’s representations regarding the existence of evidence, as opposed to the s

2021See State v. Branch, 2018-NMCA-031 , ¶¶ 49, 52, 54, 417 P.3d 1141 (concluding, in light of “[t]he mere possibility that an item of undisclosed information might have helped the defense, or might have affected the outcome of the trial,” that the district court did not err in denying the defendant’s request for a lost-evidence jury instruction (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); State v. Duarte, 2007-NMCA-012, ¶ 11 , 140 N.M. 930 , 149 P.3d 1027 (holding there was no in this context can refer to a prosecutor’s representations regarding the existence of evidence, as opposed to the s

2021See State v. Branch, 2018-NMCA-031 , ¶¶ 49, 52, 54, 417 P.3d 1141 (concluding, in light of “[t]he mere possibility that an item of undisclosed information might have helped the defense, or might have affected the outcome of the trial,” that the district court did not err in denying the defendant’s request for a lost-evidence jury instruction (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); State v. Duarte, 2007-NMCA-012, ¶ 11 , 140 N.M. 930 , 149 P.3d 1027 (holding there was no in this context can refer to a prosecutor’s representations regarding the existence of evidence, as opposed to the s

2013See 19 Quiñones, 2011-NMCA-018, ¶ 17 (stating the bases for diverging from a federal 15 1 constitutional analysis based on the New Mexico Constitution).

2013See 19 Quiñones, 2011-NMCA-018, ¶ 17 (stating the bases for diverging from a federal 15 1 constitutional analysis based on the New Mexico Constitution).

2010See State v. Roybal, 115 N.M. 27, 30 , 846 P.2d 333 , 4 336 (Ct. App. 1992). 5 In closing, we do not disagree that dismissal is an extreme sanction or that 6 Defendant’s presentations in her motion and at the hearing were quite minimal. 7 However, Defendant’s motion and oral presentation were sufficient to establish a 8 prima facie showing warranting relief under Chouinard, and the State failed to rebut 9 that showing by making arguments directed at the Chouinard factors, thus failing to 10 preserve its argument that the Chouinard factors were not met.

2010See State v. Roybal, 115 N.M. 27, 30 , 846 P.2d 333 , 4 336 (Ct. App. 1992). 5 In closing, we do not disagree that dismissal is an extreme sanction or that 6 Defendant’s presentations in her motion and at the hearing were quite minimal. 7 However, Defendant’s motion and oral presentation were sufficient to establish a 8 prima facie showing warranting relief under Chouinard, and the State failed to rebut 9 that showing by making arguments directed at the Chouinard factors, thus failing to 10 preserve its argument that the Chouinard factors were not met.

1994See, e.g., Scoggins v. State, 111 N.M. 122, 123-24 , 802 P.2d 631, 632-33 (1990) (applying the Chouinard test where the State lost various evidence of a methamphetamine lab); State v. Fero, 107 N.M. 369, 370-71 , 758 P.2d 783, 784-85 (1988) (applying the three-part test where evidence was removed from the crime scene by the police and later lost a few days before trial); State v. Boeglin, 105 N.M. 247, 254 , 731 P.2d 943, 950 (1987) (the three-part test applied where the defendant claimed that the State withheld an original tape containing exculpatory evidence, thus depriving him of evidence);

1994See, e.g., Scoggins v. State, 111 N.M. 122, 123-24 , 802 P.2d 631, 632-33 (1990) (applying the Chouinard test where the State lost various evidence of a methamphetamine lab); State v. Fero, 107 N.M. 369, 370-71 , 758 P.2d 783, 784-85 (1988) (applying the three-part test where evidence was removed from the crime scene by the police and later lost a few days before trial); State v. Boeglin, 105 N.M. 247, 254 , 731 P.2d 943, 950 (1987) (the three-part test applied where the defendant claimed that the State withheld an original tape containing exculpatory evidence, thus depriving him of evidence);

1994See, e.g., Scoggins v. State, 111 N.M. 122, 123-24 , 802 P.2d 631, 632-33 (1990) (applying the Chouinard test where the State lost various evidence of a methamphetamine lab); State v. Fero, 107 N.M. 369, 370-71 , 758 P.2d 783, 784-85 (1988) (applying the three-part test where evidence was removed from the crime scene by the police and later lost a few days before trial); State v. Boeglin, 105 N.M. 247, 254 , 731 P.2d 943, 950 (1987) (the three-part test applied where the defendant claimed that the State withheld an original tape containing exculpatory evidence, thus depriving him of evidence);

1994See, e.g., Scoggins v. State, 111 N.M. 122, 123-24 , 802 P.2d 631, 632-33 (1990) (applying the Chouinard test where the State lost various evidence of a methamphetamine lab); State v. Fero, 107 N.M. 369, 370-71 , 758 P.2d 783, 784-85 (1988) (applying the three-part test where evidence was removed from the crime scene by the police and later lost a few days before trial); State v. Boeglin, 105 N.M. 247, 254 , 731 P.2d 943, 950 (1987) (the three-part test applied where the defendant claimed that the State withheld an original tape containing exculpatory evidence, thus depriving him of evidence);

1994See, e.g., Scoggins v. State, 111 N.M. 122, 123-24 , 802 P.2d 631, 632-33 (1990) (applying the Chouinard test where the State lost various evidence of a methamphetamine lab); State v. Fero, 107 N.M. 369, 370-71 , 758 P.2d 783, 784-85 (1988) (applying the three-part test where evidence was removed from the crime scene by the police and later lost a few days before trial); State v. Boeglin, 105 N.M. 247, 254 , 731 P.2d 943, 950 (1987) (the three-part test applied where the defendant claimed that the State withheld an original tape containing exculpatory evidence, thus depriving him of evidence);

1994See, e.g., Scoggins v. State, 111 N.M. 122, 123-24 , 802 P.2d 631, 632-33 (1990) (applying the Chouinard test where the State lost various evidence of a methamphetamine lab); State v. Fero, 107 N.M. 369, 370-71 , 758 P.2d 783, 784-85 (1988) (applying the three-part test where evidence was removed from the crime scene by the police and later lost a few days before trial); State v. Boeglin, 105 N.M. 247, 254 , 731 P.2d 943, 950 (1987) (the three-part test applied where the defendant claimed that the State withheld an original tape containing exculpatory evidence, thus depriving him of evidence);

1994See, e.g., Scoggins v. State, 111 N.M. 122, 123-24 , 802 P.2d 631, 632-33 (1990) (applying the Chouinard test where the State lost various evidence of a methamphetamine lab); State v. Fero, 107 N.M. 369, 370-71 , 758 P.2d 783, 784-85 (1988) (applying the three-part test where evidence was removed from the crime scene by the police and later lost a few days before trial); State v. Boeglin, 105 N.M. 247, 254 , 731 P.2d 943, 950 (1987) (the three-part test applied where the defendant claimed that the State withheld an original tape containing exculpatory evidence, thus depriving him of evidence);

1994See, e.g., Scoggins v. State, 111 N.M. 122, 123-24 , 802 P.2d 631, 632-33 (1990) (applying the Chouinard test where the State lost various evidence of a methamphetamine lab); State v. Fero, 107 N.M. 369, 370-71 , 758 P.2d 783, 784-85 (1988) (applying the three-part test where evidence was removed from the crime scene by the police and later lost a few days before trial); State v. Boeglin, 105 N.M. 247, 254 , 731 P.2d 943, 950 (1987) (the three-part test applied where the defendant claimed that the State withheld an original tape containing exculpatory evidence, thus depriving him of evidence);

1994See, e.g., Scoggins v. State, 111 N.M. 122, 123-24 , 802 P.2d 631, 632-33 (1990) (applying the Chouinard test where the State lost various evidence of a methamphetamine lab); State v. Fero, 107 N.M. 369, 370-71 , 758 P.2d 783, 784-85 (1988) (applying the three-part test where evidence was removed from the crime scene by the police and later lost a few days before trial); State v. Boeglin, 105 N.M. 247, 254 , 731 P.2d 943, 950 (1987) (the three-part test applied where the defendant claimed that the State withheld an original tape containing exculpatory evidence, thus depriving him of evidence);

1994See, e.g., Scoggins v. State, 111 N.M. 122, 123-24 , 802 P.2d 631, 632-33 (1990) (applying the Chouinard test where the State lost various evidence of a methamphetamine lab); State v. Fero, 107 N.M. 369, 370-71 , 758 P.2d 783, 784-85 (1988) (applying the three-part test where evidence was removed from the crime scene by the police and later lost a few days before trial); State v. Boeglin, 105 N.M. 247, 254 , 731 P.2d 943, 950 (1987) (the three-part test applied where the defendant claimed that the State withheld an original tape containing exculpatory evidence, thus depriving him of evidence);

1990See id.

1990See id.