October 9, 2019- State of New Mexico v. Cristobal Garcia, No. A-1-CA-38027

Corrections to this opinion/decision not affecting the outcome, at the Court's discretion, can occur up to the time of publication
with NM Compilation Commission. The Court will ensure that the electronic version of this opinion/decision is updated
accordingly in Odyssey.
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-38027
5 CRISTOBAL GARCIA,
6 Defendant-Appellant.
7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OTERO COUNTY
8 Steven Blankinship, District Judge
9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
10 Santa Fe, NM
11 for Appellee
12 Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender
13 B. Douglas Wood III
14 Santa Fe, NM
15 for Appellant
16 MEMORANDUM OPINION
17 VARGAS, Judge.
18 {1} Defendant appeals following his convictions for aggravated battery on a
19 household member and criminal damage to property of a household member. We
20 issued a notice of proposed summary disposition in which we proposed to uphold the
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 10/9/2019 10:53 AM

2
1 convictions. Defendant has filed a memorandum in opposition. After due
2 consideration, we remain unpersuaded. We therefore affirm.
3 {2} The relevant background information has previously been set forth. We will
4 avoid undue reiteration here, and focus instead on the content of the memorandum in
5 opposition.
6 {3} Defendant continues to contend that the district court erred in admitting
7 evidence that he was not taking his medications for PTSD, social anxiety, panic
8 attacks, and bipolar disorder on the day of the incident forming the basis for his
9 convictions. [MIO 3] He argues that this evidence was irrelevant and unduly
10 prejudicial in the absence of elucidating expert medical testimony. [MIO 1, 4-10]
11 {4} We review evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. State v. Vigil,
12 2014-NMCA-096, ¶ 20, 336 P.3d 380. In this case, we perceive none.
13 {5} As we previously described in the notice of proposed summary disposition,
14 [CN 3-4] the district court reasonably concluded that Defendant’s failure to take his
15 medications on the date in question was relevant, insofar as it made a fact of
16 consequence (i.e., his mental state and apparently uncontrolled behavior) more likely.
17 See, e.g., State v. Maples, 2013-NMCA-052, ¶¶ 22, 27, 300 P.3d 749 (holding that
18 evidence of erratic and apparently uncontrollable behavior was admissible to
19 corroborate a version of the events relevant to an assaultive episode). We decline

3
1 Defendant’s invitation to depart from Maples in favor of out-of-state authority. [MIO
2 4-5] Although Defendant contends that the State should have been required to present
3 expert testimony to establish the effect of Defendant’s failure to take his medications,
4 we remain of the opinion that this is within the realm of reasonable inference, based
5 upon common knowledge and experience. See, e.g., Martinez v. N.M. State Eng'r
6 Office, 2000-NMCA-074, ¶¶ 4, 34, 129 N.M. 413, 9 P.3d 657 (holding that “although
7 there was no medical testimony presented at the hearing,” the fact-finder could
8 reasonably have determined that a party’s failure to take his medication for bipolar
9 disorder led to uncontrolled behavior). See State v. Privett, 1986-NMSC-025, ¶ 20,
10 104 N.M. 79, 717 P.2d 55 (recognizing that lay jurors are capable of drawing
11 inferences within their common knowledge and experience). We decline Defendant’s
12 invitation to limit or depart from the cited authorities. [MIO 6] We similarly conclude
13 that the district court was within its discretion in determining that the probative value
14 of the evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect. See State v. Apodaca,
15 1994-NMSC-121, ¶ 23, 118 N.M. 762, 887 P.2d 756 (“An abuse of discretion occurs
16 when the ruling is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances
17 of the case. We cannot say the trial court abused its discretion by its ruling unless we
18 can characterize it as clearly untenable or not justified by reason.” (internal quotation
19 marks and citations omitted)); State v. Chamberlain, 1991-NMSC-094, ¶ 9, 112 N.M.

4
1 723, 819 P.2d 673 (“The trial court is vested with great discretion in applying Rule
2 [11]-403 [NMRA], and it will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion.”).
3 {6} Finally, we observe that any evidentiary error appears to have been harmless.
4 See State v. Leyba, 2012-NMSC-037, ¶ 24, 289 P.3d 1215 (describing the standard
5 and factors relevant to non-constitutional harmless error review). As we previously
6 observed, [CN 5-6] the record before us reflects that the State presented compelling
7 and largely uncontradicted testimonial, photographic, and physical evidence in
8 support of its case. [MIO 2; RP 26-27, 60, 99] Defendant does not meaningfully
9 dispute this. [MIO 9-10] Because we see no reasonable probability that the disputed
10 evidence affected the verdicts, we reject Defendant’s assertion of reversible error.
11 {7} Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the notice of proposed summary
12 disposition and above, we affirm.
13 {8} IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
15 JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge
16 WE CONCUR:
17
18 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge
19
20 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge