defendant asserting plain error in New Mexico

2023See id.; cf. State v. Aragon, 1999-NMCA-060, ¶ 10 , 127 N.M. 393 , 981 P.2d 1211 (stating that the district court’s rulings are presumed to be correct and that the burden of demonstrating any claimed error in those rulings is on the appellant). {5} Defendant argues that the deputy’s testimony about “the amount [of narcotics] at issue and . . . typical trafficking behavior” was expert opinion testimony and that the admission of such testimony without the deputy being qualified as an expert amounted to plain error.

2023See id.; cf. State v. Aragon, 1999-NMCA-060, ¶ 10 , 127 N.M. 393 , 981 P.2d 1211 (stating that the district court’s rulings are presumed to be correct and that the burden of demonstrating any claimed error in those rulings is on the appellant). {5} Defendant argues that the deputy’s testimony about “the amount [of narcotics] at issue and . . . typical trafficking behavior” was expert opinion testimony and that the admission of such testimony without the deputy being qualified as an expert amounted to plain error.

2024Defendant merely asserts that “[o]nce the jail calls were played for the jury it was clear they had no probative value and only served to present the jury with inadmissible character evidence and improper information about plea negotiations and the consequences of their verdict.” Defendant contends that because the district court permitted the jury to hear such evidence “without objection and without a curative instruction, they became evidence the jury could fully consider when deciding [his] guilt or innocence.” On appeal, Defendant simply has not demonstrated that “admission of the testimon

2024See generally State v. Muller, 2022-NMCA-024 , ¶ 43, 508 P.3d 960 (providing that “we apply the [plain error] rule sparingly and only when we have grave doubts about the validity of the verdict, due to an error that infects the fairness or integrity of the judicial proceeding” and that “[t]he burden is on the defendant asserting plain error to establish prejudice” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); cf. State v. Hernandez, 2017-NMCA-020, ¶ 20 , 388 P.3d 1016 (explaining that when nonconstitutional evidentiary error occurs, the harmless error standard of review mandates reversal o

2022See State v. Summerall, 1986-NMSC-080 , ¶ 3, 105 N.M. 82 , 728 P.2d 833 (“A defendant must show prejudice before a claim of plain error can stand.”); cf. State v. Astorga, 2015-NMSC-007, ¶ 43 , 343 P.3d 1245 (holding that “[the 10To be clear, Defendant did object to certain portions of M.V.’s classmate’s and mother’s testimony, but on grounds of speculation and relevancy and not because it violated Rule 11-404(B).

2022See State v. Summerall, 1986-NMSC-080 , ¶ 3, 105 N.M. 82 , 728 P.2d 833 (“A defendant must show prejudice before a claim of plain error can stand.”); cf. State v. Astorga, 2015- 1986-NMCA-085 , ¶¶ 9-11, 104 N.M. 587 , 725 P.2d 266 (holding the defendant’s general hearsay objections pertaining to foundation did not preserve argument on appeal that testimony did not fall within a specific hearsay exception). 29 NMSC-007, ¶ 43, 343 P.3d 1245 (holding that “[the d]efendant bears the initial burden of demonstrating that he was prejudiced by the [preserved] error”). {44} In this case, Defendant does

2022See State v. Summerall, 1986-NMSC-080 , ¶ 3, 105 N.M. 82 , 728 P.2d 833 (“A defendant must show prejudice before a claim of plain error can stand.”); cf. State v. Astorga, 2015- 1986-NMCA-085 , ¶¶ 9-11, 104 N.M. 587 , 725 P.2d 266 (holding the defendant’s general hearsay objections pertaining to foundation did not preserve argument on appeal that testimony did not fall within a specific hearsay exception). 29 NMSC-007, ¶ 43, 343 P.3d 1245 (holding that “[the d]efendant bears the initial burden of demonstrating that he was prejudiced by the [preserved] error”). {44} In this case, Defendant does