N.M. R. Evid. 11-102
These rules should be construed so as to administer every proceeding fairly, eliminate unjustifiable expense and delay, and promote the development of evidence law, to the end of ascertaining the truth and securing a just determination.
N.M. R. Evid. 11-102
Committee commentary. - The language of Rule 11-102 NMRA was amended in 2012 to be consistent with the restyling of the Federal Rules of Evidence, effective December 1, 2011, to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. There is no intent to change any result in any ruling on admissibility.
[Adopted by Supreme Court Order No. 12-8300-015, effective for all cases pending or filed on or after June 16, 2012.]
ANNOTATIONS The 2012 amendment, approved by Supreme Court Order No. 12-8300-015, effective for all cases pending or filed on or after June 16, 2012, rewrote the rule to make stylistic changes. Compiler's notes. - This rule is similar to Rule 102 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Purpose of rule is a common sense approach to the application of the rules of evidence when a problem arises in the construction of the rules. Sundberg v. Hurley, 1976-NMCA-081, 89 N.M. 511, 554 P.2d 673, cert. denied, 90 N.M. 9, 558 P.2d 621. Admissibility of evidence is procedural, and governed by rules adopted by supreme court; if there is a variance between a statute and the rules of evidence adopted by this court, the rules prevail. State ex rel. Reynolds v. Holguin, 1980-NMSC-110, 95 N.M. 15, 618 P.2d 359. Effect of dispute regarding effectiveness of scientific procedure. - That a diversity of opinion exists regarding the effectiveness of a scientific procedure does not call for a per se rule of inadmissibility. Simon Neustadt Family Center v. Bludworth, 1982-NMCA-032, 97 N.M. 500, 641 P.2d 531. When psychological stress evaluation evidence is admissible. - Psychological stress evaluation evidence is admissible, within the discretion of the trial court, when evidence is introduced concerning: (1) the qualifications and expertise of the polygraph operator; (2) the reliability of the testing procedure employed as approved by authorities in the field; and (3) the validity of the test made on the subject. Simon Neustadt Family Center v. Bludworth, 1982-NMCA-032, 97 N.M. 500, 641 P.2d 531, overruled on other grounds, Melnick v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 1988 -NMSC-012, 106 N.M. 726, 749 P.2d 1105. Testimony following pretrial hypnosis not automatically inadmissible. - The testimony of a witness who has undergone pretrial hypnosis to revive the memory of the witness without the administration of any drugs is neither automatically inadmissible nor subject to a blanket proscription. State v. Beachum, 1981-NMCA-137, 97 N.M. 682, 643 P.2d 246. Law reviews. - For article, "Evidence," see 12 N.M.L. Rev. 379 (1982).