This decision was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of non-precedential dispositions. Please also note that this electronic decision may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Supreme Court.
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
2 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
3 Plaintiff-Appellee,
4 v. No. A-1-CA-35361
5 TERRI JARAMILLO,
6 Defendant-Appellant.
7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 8 Charles W. Brown, District Judge
9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 10 Walter M. Hart III, Assistant Attorney General 11 Santa Fe, NM
12 for Appellee
13 Law Offices of Jennifer J. Wernersbach, P.C. 14 Jennifer J. Wernersbach 15 Albuquerque, NM
16 for Appellant
17 MEMORANDUM OPINION
18 MEDINA, Judge. 1 {1} Defendant Terri Jaramillo entered into a conditional guilty plea agreement
2 under which she agreed to plead guilty to fraud over $2,500 but not more than
3 $20,000 but reserved the right to appeal from the exclusion of nine witnesses as a
4 sanction for violating a scheduling order. Defendant raises two issues on appeal.
5 First, she argues that the district court abused its discretion by excluding her
6 witnesses without consideration of her culpability, the prejudice to the State, and
7 the availability of lesser sanctions. Second, she argues that she received ineffective
8 assistance of counsel. We reverse and remand without consideration of
9 Defendant’s ineffective assistance claim.
10 BACKGROUND
11 {2} Defendant was charged with fraud, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-16-
12 6 (2006), after allegedly misappropriating funds owed to a client. The district court
13 issued a scheduling order setting a January 30, 2015 deadline for witness lists and
14 witness contact information. The district court scheduled a docket call for June 22,
15 2015, and placed the case on the June 29, 2015 trailing trial docket.
16 {3} Defendant filed her witness list on June 19, 2015, identifying nine witnesses
17 that had not been previously disclosed to the State. At the June 22, 2015 docket
18 call, the district court precluded Defendant from calling all nine witnesses on her
19 list, reasoning that the State would not have sufficient time to conduct witness
20 interviews before the trial scheduled for June 29, 2015. The district court noted that
2 1 the January 2015 deadline to file witness lists was designed to avoid the very
2 problems presented by Defendant’s late disclosure. The district court stated, “The
3 Supreme Court has set out these rules for [the Second Judicial District Court] to
4 enforce and . . . that [attorneys are required to] follow. They’re dictating for us.”
5 Defendant’s case was reassigned to another district court judge, and Defendant
6 subsequently entered a conditional guilty plea. This appeal followed.
7 DISCUSSION
8 Standard of Review
9 {4} We review district court decisions to exclude defense witnesses for an abuse
10 of discretion. See State v. Guerra, 2012-NMSC-014, ¶ 23, 278 P.3d 1031. “An
11 abuse of discretion occurs when the ruling is clearly against the logic and effects of
12 the facts and circumstances of the case, is clearly untenable, or is not justified by
13 reason.” State v. Balderama, 2004-NMSC-008, ¶ 22, 135 N.M. 329, 88 P.3d 845.
14 “[A] court’s inherent power is at the core of judicial authority,” including the
15 “inherent power to impose a variety of sanctions on both litigants and attorneys in
16 order to regulate their docket[ and] promote judicial efficiency[.]” State ex rel.
17 N.M. State Highway & Transp. Dep’t v. Baca, 1995-NMSC-033, ¶¶ 11, 20, 120
18 N.M. 1, 896 P.2d 1148 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “The
19 decision to exclude evidence calls on judicial discretion to weigh all the
20 circumstances, including willfulness in violating the discovery rule, the resulting
3 1 prejudice to the opposing party, and the materiality of the precluded testimony.”
2 Guerra, 2012-NMSC-014, ¶ 33. “A defendant’s right to present evidence on her
3 own behalf is subject to her compliance with established rules of procedure and
4 evidence designed to assure both fairness and reliability in the ascertainment of
5 guilt or innocence.” Id. ¶ 32 (alterations, internal quotation marks, and citation
6 omitted).
7 The District Court Abused Its Discretion
8 {5} The district court based its decision to exclude Defendant’s witnesses upon
9 “the dictate that has come from our Supreme Court,” referring to Rule LR2-400
10 NMRA and Rule LR2-400.1 NMRA.1
11 {6} LR2-400.12 provides, “The Rules of Criminal Procedure . . . and existing
12 case law on criminal procedure continue to apply . . . to the extent they do not
13 conflict with” the special calendaring rule. LR2-400.1(A). The rule requires the
14 parties to disclose all discovery described in Rule 5-501(A)(1)-(6) NMRA, as well
1 LR2-400 took effect on February 2, 2015, and was recompiled as LR2-308 NMRA in 2016. We will refer to the rule as LR2-400 in this opinion, because that was what it was called at the time the district court made its ruling. LR2-400 applied to criminal cases filed in the Second Judicial District Court on or before June 30, 2014. LR2-400(B)(1); LR2-400.1(B). Defendant’s case, commenced on June 4, 2014, was governed by LR2-400.1, the special calendaring rule. 2 A copy of LR2-400.1 is available at https://seconddistrictcourt.nmcourts.gov/case-management-order.aspx by selecting “Adopted Rule for ‘Special Calendar.’ ”
4 1 as the phone numbers and e-mail addresses of all witnesses if available, within ten
2 days of the effective date of the rule (February 2, 2015), or no later than February
3 12, 2015. LR2-400.1(D); see State v. Lewis, 2018-NMCA-019, ¶ 5, 413 P.3d 484.
4 The parties also have a continuing duty to disclose additional information within
5 five (5) days of receipt of such information. LR2-400.1(D)(2); Lewis, 2018-
6 NMCA-019, ¶ 5. Should either party fail to comply with the discovery rule or any
7 provision of the scheduling order, the rule requires the district court to impose
8 sanctions, which may include dismissal of the case with or without prejudice,
9 prohibiting the party from calling a witness or introducing evidence, monetary
10 sanctions, or any other sanction deemed appropriate by the court. LR2-
11 400.1(D)(4), (J).
12 {7} Our opinion is informed by this Court’s reasoning in Lewis, 2018-NMCA-
13 019, ¶ 8, in which we analyzed the special calendaring rule’s impact upon the
14 requirement that district courts consider, on the record, the issues of culpability,
15 prejudice, and lesser sanctions in determining what type of sanction to impose for a
16 discovery violation, as provided by our Supreme Court in State v. Harper, 2011-
17 NMSC-044, 150 N.M. 745, 266 P.3d 25, and clarified by State v. Le Mier, 2017-
18 NMSC-017, 394 P.3d 959. We explained in Lewis that “[w]hile the language of the
19 rule makes sanctions mandatory for violations of discovery obligations and
20 scheduling order deadlines, it leaves the decision of the type of sanction to impose
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
This decision was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of non-precedential dispositions. Please also note that this electronic decision may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Supreme Court.
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
2 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
3 Plaintiff-Appellee,
4 v. No. A-1-CA-35361
5 TERRI JARAMILLO,
6 Defendant-Appellant.
7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 8 Charles W. Brown, District Judge
9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 10 Walter M. Hart III, Assistant Attorney General 11 Santa Fe, NM
12 for Appellee
13 Law Offices of Jennifer J. Wernersbach, P.C. 14 Jennifer J. Wernersbach 15 Albuquerque, NM
16 for Appellant
17 MEMORANDUM OPINION
18 MEDINA, Judge. 1 {1} Defendant Terri Jaramillo entered into a conditional guilty plea agreement
2 under which she agreed to plead guilty to fraud over $2,500 but not more than
3 $20,000 but reserved the right to appeal from the exclusion of nine witnesses as a
4 sanction for violating a scheduling order. Defendant raises two issues on appeal.
5 First, she argues that the district court abused its discretion by excluding her
6 witnesses without consideration of her culpability, the prejudice to the State, and
7 the availability of lesser sanctions. Second, she argues that she received ineffective
8 assistance of counsel. We reverse and remand without consideration of
9 Defendant’s ineffective assistance claim.
10 BACKGROUND
11 {2} Defendant was charged with fraud, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-16-
12 6 (2006), after allegedly misappropriating funds owed to a client. The district court
13 issued a scheduling order setting a January 30, 2015 deadline for witness lists and
14 witness contact information. The district court scheduled a docket call for June 22,
15 2015, and placed the case on the June 29, 2015 trailing trial docket.
16 {3} Defendant filed her witness list on June 19, 2015, identifying nine witnesses
17 that had not been previously disclosed to the State. At the June 22, 2015 docket
18 call, the district court precluded Defendant from calling all nine witnesses on her
19 list, reasoning that the State would not have sufficient time to conduct witness
20 interviews before the trial scheduled for June 29, 2015. The district court noted that
2 1 the January 2015 deadline to file witness lists was designed to avoid the very
2 problems presented by Defendant’s late disclosure. The district court stated, “The
3 Supreme Court has set out these rules for [the Second Judicial District Court] to
4 enforce and . . . that [attorneys are required to] follow. They’re dictating for us.”
5 Defendant’s case was reassigned to another district court judge, and Defendant
6 subsequently entered a conditional guilty plea. This appeal followed.
7 DISCUSSION
8 Standard of Review
9 {4} We review district court decisions to exclude defense witnesses for an abuse
10 of discretion. See State v. Guerra, 2012-NMSC-014, ¶ 23, 278 P.3d 1031. “An
11 abuse of discretion occurs when the ruling is clearly against the logic and effects of
12 the facts and circumstances of the case, is clearly untenable, or is not justified by
13 reason.” State v. Balderama, 2004-NMSC-008, ¶ 22, 135 N.M. 329, 88 P.3d 845.
14 “[A] court’s inherent power is at the core of judicial authority,” including the
15 “inherent power to impose a variety of sanctions on both litigants and attorneys in
16 order to regulate their docket[ and] promote judicial efficiency[.]” State ex rel.
17 N.M. State Highway & Transp. Dep’t v. Baca, 1995-NMSC-033, ¶¶ 11, 20, 120
18 N.M. 1, 896 P.2d 1148 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “The
19 decision to exclude evidence calls on judicial discretion to weigh all the
20 circumstances, including willfulness in violating the discovery rule, the resulting
3 1 prejudice to the opposing party, and the materiality of the precluded testimony.”
2 Guerra, 2012-NMSC-014, ¶ 33. “A defendant’s right to present evidence on her
3 own behalf is subject to her compliance with established rules of procedure and
4 evidence designed to assure both fairness and reliability in the ascertainment of
5 guilt or innocence.” Id. ¶ 32 (alterations, internal quotation marks, and citation
6 omitted).
7 The District Court Abused Its Discretion
8 {5} The district court based its decision to exclude Defendant’s witnesses upon
9 “the dictate that has come from our Supreme Court,” referring to Rule LR2-400
10 NMRA and Rule LR2-400.1 NMRA.1
11 {6} LR2-400.12 provides, “The Rules of Criminal Procedure . . . and existing
12 case law on criminal procedure continue to apply . . . to the extent they do not
13 conflict with” the special calendaring rule. LR2-400.1(A). The rule requires the
14 parties to disclose all discovery described in Rule 5-501(A)(1)-(6) NMRA, as well
1 LR2-400 took effect on February 2, 2015, and was recompiled as LR2-308 NMRA in 2016. We will refer to the rule as LR2-400 in this opinion, because that was what it was called at the time the district court made its ruling. LR2-400 applied to criminal cases filed in the Second Judicial District Court on or before June 30, 2014. LR2-400(B)(1); LR2-400.1(B). Defendant’s case, commenced on June 4, 2014, was governed by LR2-400.1, the special calendaring rule. 2 A copy of LR2-400.1 is available at https://seconddistrictcourt.nmcourts.gov/case-management-order.aspx by selecting “Adopted Rule for ‘Special Calendar.’ ”
4 1 as the phone numbers and e-mail addresses of all witnesses if available, within ten
2 days of the effective date of the rule (February 2, 2015), or no later than February
3 12, 2015. LR2-400.1(D); see State v. Lewis, 2018-NMCA-019, ¶ 5, 413 P.3d 484.
4 The parties also have a continuing duty to disclose additional information within
5 five (5) days of receipt of such information. LR2-400.1(D)(2); Lewis, 2018-
6 NMCA-019, ¶ 5. Should either party fail to comply with the discovery rule or any
7 provision of the scheduling order, the rule requires the district court to impose
8 sanctions, which may include dismissal of the case with or without prejudice,
9 prohibiting the party from calling a witness or introducing evidence, monetary
10 sanctions, or any other sanction deemed appropriate by the court. LR2-
11 400.1(D)(4), (J).
12 {7} Our opinion is informed by this Court’s reasoning in Lewis, 2018-NMCA-
13 019, ¶ 8, in which we analyzed the special calendaring rule’s impact upon the
14 requirement that district courts consider, on the record, the issues of culpability,
15 prejudice, and lesser sanctions in determining what type of sanction to impose for a
16 discovery violation, as provided by our Supreme Court in State v. Harper, 2011-
17 NMSC-044, 150 N.M. 745, 266 P.3d 25, and clarified by State v. Le Mier, 2017-
18 NMSC-017, 394 P.3d 959. We explained in Lewis that “[w]hile the language of the
19 rule makes sanctions mandatory for violations of discovery obligations and
20 scheduling order deadlines, it leaves the decision of the type of sanction to impose
5 1 to the discretion of the district court.” 2018-NMCA-019, ¶ 8. Finding no guidance
2 in the rule “as to the considerations to be made when assessing sanctions[,]” we
3 relied in Lewis on our Supreme Court’s guidelines for assessing sanctions as stated
4 in Harper and clarified by Le Mier. Lewis, 2018-NMCA-019, ¶ 8. Because they do
5 not conflict with the special calendaring rule, see id., we continue to apply these
6 guidelines to our analysis in this case.
7 {8} Defendant having violated the scheduling order, the district court was
8 required to impose sanctions. LR2-400.1(J)(4). “Those sanctions are subject to the
9 considerations enunciated in Harper and Le Mier.” Lewis, 2018-NMCA-019, ¶ 11.
10 “Le Mier makes it clear that, even when the special calendaring rule requires
11 imposition of sanctions, the district court must evaluate culpability, prejudice, and
12 lesser sanctions, as enunciated in Harper.” Lewis, 2018-NMCA-019, ¶ 11
13 (omission, alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). “Upon
14 weighing those factors, the district court then has discretion to decide which
15 sanction to impose, but has an obligation to explain the reasons for its decision.”
16 Id. “Le Mier requires the district court to not only weigh the degree of culpability
17 and extent of prejudice, but also explain its decision regarding applicability of
18 lesser sanctions on the record.” Lewis, 2018-NMCA-019, ¶ 12.
19 {9} Here, the district court gave virtually no on-the-record consideration of the
20 Harper factors. At the docket call, the district court stated its concern that the late-
6 1 filed witness list would “hamstring” the State, but the record is silent on the
2 remaining factors involving the Defendant’s culpability for the discovery violation
3 and consideration of lesser sanctions. The record in this case is thus inadequate to
4 determine whether the district court exercised due care in making its decision to
5 impose the severe sanction of witness exclusion, falling short of Le Mier’s
6 requirement that a district court explain its decision on the record. Lewis, 2018-
7 NMCA-019, ¶ 12. Thus, the exclusion of Defendant’s witnesses “cannot presently
8 be evaluated or justified by this Court, and we must reverse and remand the matter
9 to the district court for further proceedings.” Id.
10 {10} We address the record made in this case in light of the Harper factors, as
11 modified by Le Mier, beginning with Defendant’s culpability. See Lewis, 2018-
12 NMCA-019, ¶ 13. “Le Mier moves courts away from the Harper requirement that
13 bad faith or intransigence exist prior to assessing sanctions against a party.” Lewis,
14 2018-NMCA-019, ¶ 13. “In Le Mier, our Supreme Court emphasized the
15 mandatory nature of a court’s orders, stating that “ ‘[p]arties must obey discovery
16 orders’ and explaining that ‘[o]ur system of justice would be neither orderly nor
17 efficient’ if parties were not held to comply with those orders.” Lewis, 2018-
18 NMCA-019, ¶ 13 (quoting Le Mier, 2017-NMSC-017, ¶ 24). Our Supreme Court
19 also acknowledged in Le Mier the applicability of a rebuttable presumption of
20 culpability when a discovery order is violated. See 2017-NMSC-017, ¶ 24. “The
7 1 degree of culpability, however, is a fact-specific inquiry for the district court to
2 consider in assessing sanctions against a party.” Lewis, 2018-NMCA-019, ¶ 13. “It
3 is through this consideration of degree that bad faith or intransigence now factors
4 into a district court’s consideration of appropriate sanctions.” Id. The district court
5 made no such assessment in this case.
6 {11} With respect to the prejudice factor, “Le Mier explains that when a court
7 orders a party to provide discovery within a given time frame, failure to comply
8 with that order causes prejudice both to the opposing party and to the court.”
9 Lewis, 2018-NMCA-019, ¶ 14 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation
10 omitted). “[E]very discovery order violation gives rise to some degree of
11 prejudice.” Id. We note that the State, on appeal, argues that the precluded
12 testimony of the Defendant’s excluded witnesses would not have been material,
13 relevant, or otherwise admissible even if the witnesses had been permitted to
14 testify at trial. We view this as a concession by the State that it would have
15 sustained no prejudice by the late filing of Defendant’s witness list, because it
16 would have prevailed in arguing against the admissibility of the witness testimony
17 on other grounds. Regardless, the district court’s statement on the record that the
18 untimeliness of Defendant’s witness list would “hamstring” the State was
19 sufficient to satisfy the prejudice prong of Harper.
8 1 {12} “Finally, we look at whether the district court considered lesser sanctions
2 prior to [excluding the defense witnesses].” Lewis, 2018-NMCA-019, ¶ 15. “Le
3 Mier reminds us that the district court was not obligated to consider every
4 conceivable lesser sanction before” excluding Defendant’s witnesses. Id. (internal
5 quotation marks and citation omitted). Based on our review of the record, it does
6 not appear the district court considered lesser sanctions. Rather, the district court
7 stated that it was acting under our Supreme Court’s “dictat[e]” and expressed
8 concern over the State’s ability to adequately prepare for trial. There appears to
9 have been no discussion, for example, of excluding some but not all of the
10 witnesses Defendant wished to call or limiting their testimony, nor discussion of
11 monetary or other available sanctions. In other words, the district court made no
12 statements on the record that reflect its consideration of lesser sanctions.
13 {13} “Despite the broad discretion Le Mier provides district courts when
14 imposing sanctions, we remind our district courts that any decision to impose
15 severe sanctions requires an adequately developed record that an appellate court
16 can substantively review.” Lewis, 2018-NMCA-019, ¶ 16. Our conclusion “does
17 not preclude the possibility that the district court could have developed an adequate
18 record finding [Defendant] culpable, perceiving sufficient prejudice to [the State]
19 or the court, and determining that the [scheduling order] violation was sufficiently
20 egregious to warrant [total witness exclusion] rather than a lesser sanction[.]” Id.
9 1 “We are also fully aware of our duty to view the evidence and all inferences in the
2 light most favorable to the district court’s decision but without an adequate record
3 explaining the district court’s ruling and reasoning, we cannot properly perform
4 our role as an appellate court.” Id. (citation omitted). The district court in this case
5 failed to make an adequate record and explain its reasons for imposing a severe
6 sanction. We make no determination regarding whether total witness exclusion was
7 an appropriate sanction in this case. We reverse the district court’s sanction order
8 and remand for further consideration in light of this opinion.
9 {14} Our conclusion is further supported by our Supreme Court’s opinion in
10 McCarty v. State, 1988-NMSC-079, ¶ 16, 107 N.M. 651, 763 P.2d 360, in which
11 the Court stated:
12 Before resorting to preclusion, a [district court] should weigh not only 13 the prejudicial effect of noncompliance on the immediate case, but 14 also the necessity to enforce the rule to preserve the integrity of the 15 trial process. The [district court] should consider whether the 16 noncompliance was a willful attempt to prevent the State from 17 investigating facts necessary for the preparation of its case. The 18 [district court] then must balance the resulting prejudice to the State 19 against the materiality of the precluded testimony to the outcome of 20 the case.
21 (emphasis added) (citation omitted). Though a different district court judge
22 expressed doubt at the plea hearing about the relevancy of the defense witnesses’
23 testimony, we cannot infer from this record that the district court judge who
24 imposed the sanction of witness exclusion undertook the balancing inquiry
10 1 required by McCarty. To reiterate, we are faced with an inadequate record that
2 prevents us from determining whether the district court exercised due care in
3 sanctioning Defendant.
4 {15} Concluding that the district court abused its discretion in this case by failing
5 to address the Harper and Le Mier factors, we need not review Defendant’s
6 ineffective assistance claim.
7 CONCLUSION
8 {16} We reverse the district court’s order sanctioning Defendant and remand for
9 further proceedings consistent with LR2-400.1, Harper, and Le Mier.
10 {17} IT IS SO ORDERED.
11 _______________________________ 12 JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge
WE CONCUR:
13 _________________________________ 14 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge
15 _________________________________ 16 MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge