field test in New Mexico

2025See State v. McClennen, 2008-NMCA-130, ¶ 12 , 144 N.M. 878 , 192 P.3d 1255 (stating that, in a criminal case, “[b]efore the results of a field test can be introduced to prove the identity of contraband, the state must establish the scientific reliability of the test and the validity of the scientific principles on which the field test is based”), overruled on other grounds by Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008 , ¶ 37 n.6.

2022Immediately before trial, Defendant made an oral motion in limine to prevent the officer who conducted the field test from testifying to the result without an adequate understanding of the scientific principles on which the field test was based, pursuant to State v. McClennen, 2008-NMCA-130, ¶ 12 , 144 N.M. 878 , 192 P.3d 1255 , overruled on other grounds by State v. Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008 , ¶ 37 n.6, 275 P.3d 110 .

2021See State v. Morales, 2002- NMCA-052, ¶ 23, 132 N.M. 146 , 45 P.3d 406 , overruled on other grounds by State v. Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008 , ¶ 37 n.6, 275 P.3d 110 ; see also State v. McClennen, 2008- NMCA-130, ¶ 12, 144 N.M. 878 , 192 P.3d 1255 (stating that, in a criminal case, “[b]efore the results of a field test can be introduced to prove the identity of contraband, the state must establish the scientific reliability of the test and the validity of the scientific principles on which the field test is based”), overruled on other grounds by Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008 , ¶ 37 n.6.

2021See State v. Morales, 2002- NMCA-052, ¶ 23, 132 N.M. 146 , 45 P.3d 406 , overruled on other grounds by State v. Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008 , ¶ 37 n.6, 275 P.3d 110 ; see also State v. McClennen, 2008- NMCA-130, ¶ 12, 144 N.M. 878 , 192 P.3d 1255 (stating that, in a criminal case, “[b]efore the results of a field test can be introduced to prove the identity of contraband, the state must establish the scientific reliability of the test and the validity of the scientific principles on which the field test is based”), overruled on other grounds by Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008 , ¶ 37 n.6.

2025See State v. McClennen, 2008-NMCA-130, ¶ 12 , 144 N.M. 878 , 192 P.3d 1255 (stating that, in a criminal case, “[b]efore the results of a field test can be introduced to prove the identity of contraband, the state must establish the scientific reliability of the test and the validity of the scientific principles on which the field test is based”), overruled on other grounds by Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008 , ¶ 37 n.6.

2025See State v. McClennen, 2008-NMCA-130, ¶ 12 , 144 N.M. 878 , 192 P.3d 1255 (stating that, in a criminal case, “[b]efore the results of a field test can be introduced to prove the identity of contraband, the state must establish the scientific reliability of the test and the validity of the scientific principles on which the field test is based”), overruled on other grounds by Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008 , ¶ 37 n.6.

2015See, e.g., State v. Rivera, 2010-NMSC-046, ¶ 19 , 148 N.M. 6 659, 241 P.3d 1099 (discussing United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984), and 7 its holding that a field test of a substance is not a search subject to the Fourth 8 Amendment)).

2015See, e.g., State v. Rivera, 2010-NMSC-046, ¶ 19 , 148 N.M. 6 659, 241 P.3d 1099 (discussing United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984), and 7 its holding that a field test of a substance is not a search subject to the Fourth 8 Amendment)).

2021Here, in addition to the field test, the officer also testified that drug paraphernalia was found with the substance in question. [RP 93] We conclude that this evidence satisfies the reasonable certainty standard. {5} To the extent that Defendant is arguing that the field test testimony violated his right to due process [MIO 4], Defendant did not raise this issue below with respect to the field test. [RP 93] See State v. Montoya, 2015-NMSC-010, ¶ 45 , 345 P.3d 1056 (stating that “[i]n order to preserve an issue for appeal, a defendant must make a timely objection that specifically apprises the

2021Here, in addition to the field test, the officer also testified that drug paraphernalia was found with the substance in question. [RP 93] We conclude that this evidence satisfies the reasonable certainty standard. {5} To the extent that Defendant is arguing that the field test testimony violated his right to due process [MIO 4], Defendant did not raise this issue below with respect to the field test. [RP 93] See State v. Montoya, 2015-NMSC-010, ¶ 45 , 345 P.3d 1056 (stating that “[i]n order to preserve an issue for appeal, a defendant must make a timely objection that specifically apprises the

2025See State v. Johnson, 2004-NMSC-029, ¶ 38 , 136 N.M. 348 , 98 P.3d 998 (defining cumulative evidence as “additional evidence of the same kind tending to prove the same point as other evidence already given” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

2025See State v. Johnson, 2004-NMSC-029, ¶ 38 , 136 N.M. 348 , 98 P.3d 998 (defining cumulative evidence as “additional evidence of the same kind tending to prove the same point as other evidence already given” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

2025See State v. Pamphille, 2021-NMCA-002, ¶ 39 , 482 P.3d 1241 (recognizing that where a defendant fails to establish error, there is no prima facie case for ineffective assistance of counsel). {11} Defendant next argues that his counsel was ineffective in failing to object to introduction of the field test results identifying the substance as methamphetamine based on the State’s failure to prove the scientific reliability of the field tests.

2025See State v. Pamphille, 2021-NMCA-002, ¶ 39 , 482 P.3d 1241 (recognizing that where a defendant fails to establish error, there is no prima facie case for ineffective assistance of counsel). {11} Defendant next argues that his counsel was ineffective in failing to object to introduction of the field test results identifying the substance as methamphetamine based on the State’s failure to prove the scientific reliability of the field tests.

2021See State v. Moore, 1989-NMCA-073 , ¶ 42, 109 N.M. 119 , 782 P.2d 91 (stating that this Court will deny motions to amend that raise issues that are not viable, even if they allege fundamental or jurisdictional error), overruled on other grounds by State v. Salgado, 1991-NMCA-044 , 112 N.M. 537 , 817 P.2d 730 ; State v. Guthrie, 2011-NMSC- 014, ¶ 34, 150 N.M. 84 , 257 P.3d 904 (stating that to establish a due process violation the challenged evidence must be central to reason for the probation revocation).

2021See State v. Moore, 1989-NMCA-073 , ¶ 42, 109 N.M. 119 , 782 P.2d 91 (stating that this Court will deny motions to amend that raise issues that are not viable, even if they allege fundamental or jurisdictional error), overruled on other grounds by State v. Salgado, 1991-NMCA-044 , 112 N.M. 537 , 817 P.2d 730 ; State v. Guthrie, 2011-NMSC- 014, ¶ 34, 150 N.M. 84 , 257 P.3d 904 (stating that to establish a due process violation the challenged evidence must be central to reason for the probation revocation).

2021See State v. Moore, 1989-NMCA-073 , ¶ 42, 109 N.M. 119 , 782 P.2d 91 (stating that this Court will deny motions to amend that raise issues that are not viable, even if they allege fundamental or jurisdictional error), overruled on other grounds by State v. Salgado, 1991-NMCA-044 , 112 N.M. 537 , 817 P.2d 730 ; State v. Guthrie, 2011-NMSC- 014, ¶ 34, 150 N.M. 84 , 257 P.3d 904 (stating that to establish a due process violation the challenged evidence must be central to reason for the probation revocation).

2021See State v. Moore, 1989-NMCA-073 , ¶ 42, 109 N.M. 119 , 782 P.2d 91 (stating that this Court will deny motions to amend that raise issues that are not viable, even if they allege fundamental or jurisdictional error), overruled on other grounds by State v. Salgado, 1991-NMCA-044 , 112 N.M. 537 , 817 P.2d 730 ; State v. Guthrie, 2011-NMSC- 014, ¶ 34, 150 N.M. 84 , 257 P.3d 904 (stating that to establish a due process violation the challenged evidence must be central to reason for the probation revocation).

2016See Leon, 2013-NMCA-011, ¶ 37 (stating that 4 “although [the d]efendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting each 5 of his probation violations, if there is sufficient evidence to support just one violation, 6 we will find the district court’s order was proper”); see also Green, 2015-NMCA-007 , 7 ¶ 21, n.3, (declining to reach the issue of whether sufficient evidence supported 8 revocation of the defendant’s probation on the remaining alleged grounds where the 9 Court found sufficient evidence of a violation on one ground). 10 {8} For these reasons, we affirm the district cour

2016See Leon, 2013-NMCA-011, ¶ 37 (stating that 4 “although [the d]efendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting each 5 of his probation violations, if there is sufficient evidence to support just one violation, 6 we will find the district court’s order was proper”); see also Green, 2015-NMCA-007 , 7 ¶ 21, n.3, (declining to reach the issue of whether sufficient evidence supported 8 revocation of the defendant’s probation on the remaining alleged grounds where the 9 Court found sufficient evidence of a violation on one ground). 10 {8} For these reasons, we affirm the district cour

2015See, e.g., State v. Rivera, 2010-NMSC-046, ¶ 19 , 148 N.M. 6 659, 241 P.3d 1099 (discussing United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984), and 7 its holding that a field test of a substance is not a search subject to the Fourth 8 Amendment)).

2015See, e.g., State v. Rivera, 2010-NMSC-046, ¶ 19 , 148 N.M. 6 659, 241 P.3d 1099 (discussing United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984), and 7 its holding that a field test of a substance is not a search subject to the Fourth 8 Amendment)).

2015See, e.g., State v. Bomboy, 2008-NMSC-029 , 18 ¶¶ 17, 18, 144 N.M. 151 , 184 P.3d 1045 (holding that officer had probable cause to 19 seize methamphetamine found during an automobile stop, and evidence therefore 3 1 should not have been suppressed, where methamphetamine was contained in baggies 2 that were located in plain view and officer recognized contents as contraband). 3 {5} Since the officers validly seized the methamphetamine, they were also entitled 4 to perform a field test on the substance to confirm Officer McCasland’s belief that the 5 substance was contraband.

2015See, e.g., State v. Bomboy, 2008-NMSC-029 , 18 ¶¶ 17, 18, 144 N.M. 151 , 184 P.3d 1045 (holding that officer had probable cause to 19 seize methamphetamine found during an automobile stop, and evidence therefore 3 1 should not have been suppressed, where methamphetamine was contained in baggies 2 that were located in plain view and officer recognized contents as contraband). 3 {5} Since the officers validly seized the methamphetamine, they were also entitled 4 to perform a field test on the substance to confirm Officer McCasland’s belief that the 5 substance was contraband.

2011See State v. Rodriguez, 81 N.M. 503, 505 , 469 P.2d 148 , 13 150 (1970) (“If there is substantial evidence . . . to support the verdict of the jury, we 14 will not resort to fundamental error.”). 15 Officer John Martinez, one of the officers who responded to the scene, testified 16 that he conducted a field test on either the State’s Exhibit 6 or 7 and that the exhibit 17 tested positive for cocaine.

2011See State v. Rodriguez, 81 N.M. 503, 505 , 469 P.2d 148 , 13 150 (1970) (“If there is substantial evidence . . . to support the verdict of the jury, we 14 will not resort to fundamental error.”). 15 Officer John Martinez, one of the officers who responded to the scene, testified 16 that he conducted a field test on either the State’s Exhibit 6 or 7 and that the exhibit 17 tested positive for cocaine.

2004See State v. Richards, 351 N.J.Super. 289 , 798 A.2d 136 , 142 n. 6 (Ct.App.Div.2002) (explaining that a field inquiry escalated into a Terry stop when a defendant was asked to place his hands on the patrol car).

2004See State v. Richards, 351 N.J.Super. 289 , 798 A.2d 136 , 142 n. 6 (Ct.App.Div.2002) (explaining that a field inquiry escalated into a Terry stop when a defendant was asked to place his hands on the patrol car).

2002See State v. Young, 117 N.M. 688, 693 , 875 P.2d 1119, 1124 (Ct.App.1994) (holding a late Miranda objection timely when the grounds for objection ripened).

2002Alberico, 116 N.M. at 166, 861 P.2d at 202; see also Torres, 1999-NMSC-010, ¶ 23 , 127 N.M. 20 , 976 P.2d 20 ; State v. Stills, 1998-NMSC-009, ¶27 , 125 N.M. 66 , 957 P.2d 51 (explaining the third requirement); State v. Anderson, 118 N.M. 284, 291-92 , 881 P.2d 29, 36-37 (1994) (explaining the second and third requirements). [T]he proper inquiry under Rule 702 is whether the subject of the expert’s testimony is grounded in valid, objective science, that is “scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge,” and whether the underlying scientific technique or method is reliable enough to pro

2002Alberico, 116 N.M. at 166, 861 P.2d at 202; see also Torres, 1999-NMSC-010, ¶ 23 , 127 N.M. 20 , 976 P.2d 20 ; State v. Stills, 1998-NMSC-009, ¶27 , 125 N.M. 66 , 957 P.2d 51 (explaining the third requirement); State v. Anderson, 118 N.M. 284, 291-92 , 881 P.2d 29, 36-37 (1994) (explaining the second and third requirements). [T]he proper inquiry under Rule 702 is whether the subject of the expert’s testimony is grounded in valid, objective science, that is “scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge,” and whether the underlying scientific technique or method is reliable enough to pro

2002See State v. Post, 109 N.M. 177, 181 , 783 P.2d 487, 491 (Ct.App.1989) (holding evidence that was improperly admitted is considered when determining whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction).

2002See State v. Post, 109 N.M. 177, 181 , 783 P.2d 487, 491 (Ct.App.1989) (holding evidence that was improperly admitted is considered when determining whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction).

2002See State v. Young, 117 N.M. 688, 693 , 875 P.2d 1119, 1124 (Ct.App.1994) (holding a late Miranda objection timely when the grounds for objection ripened).

2002Evidentiary reliability has been described as “the hallmark for the admissibility of scientific knowledge.” Torres, 1999-NMSC-010, ¶ 24 , 127 N.M. 20 , 976 P.2d 20 . {22} In his testimony, Deputy Gonzales acknowledged that he knew nothing about the chemical features of the field test and how it produced a certain color that identified heroin.

2002Evidentiary reliability has been described as “the hallmark for the admissibility of scientific knowledge.” Torres, 1999-NMSC-010, ¶ 24 , 127 N.M. 20 , 976 P.2d 20 . {22} In his testimony, Deputy Gonzales acknowledged that he knew nothing about the chemical features of the field test and how it produced a certain color that identified heroin.

2002Alberico, 116 N.M. at 166, 861 P.2d at 202; see also Torres, 1999-NMSC-010, ¶ 23 , 127 N.M. 20 , 976 P.2d 20 ; State v. Stills, 1998-NMSC-009, ¶27 , 125 N.M. 66 , 957 P.2d 51 (explaining the third requirement); State v. Anderson, 118 N.M. 284, 291-92 , 881 P.2d 29, 36-37 (1994) (explaining the second and third requirements). [T]he proper inquiry under Rule 702 is whether the subject of the expert’s testimony is grounded in valid, objective science, that is “scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge,” and whether the underlying scientific technique or method is reliable enough to pro

2002Alberico, 116 N.M. at 166, 861 P.2d at 202; see also Torres, 1999-NMSC-010, ¶ 23 , 127 N.M. 20 , 976 P.2d 20 ; State v. Stills, 1998-NMSC-009, ¶27 , 125 N.M. 66 , 957 P.2d 51 (explaining the third requirement); State v. Anderson, 118 N.M. 284, 291-92 , 881 P.2d 29, 36-37 (1994) (explaining the second and third requirements). [T]he proper inquiry under Rule 702 is whether the subject of the expert’s testimony is grounded in valid, objective science, that is “scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge,” and whether the underlying scientific technique or method is reliable enough to pro

2000"Generally, courts throughout the country have ruled that a field inquiry becomes a Terry stop upon unsupported outright accusations of criminal activity." In re J.G., 320 N.J.Super. 21 , 726 A.2d 948, 953 (App.Div.1999) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2000"Generally, courts throughout the country have ruled that a field inquiry becomes a Terry stop upon unsupported outright accusations of criminal activity." In re J.G., 320 N.J.Super. 21 , 726 A.2d 948, 953 (App.Div.1999) (internal quotation marks omitted).