witness admitted that he had prior convictions when he took the stand. Because Garcia failed to object to the information provided, failed to make any offer of proof, and fails to cite to relevant portions of the record, Garcia’s claim of error is unpreserved, unsupported by the record, and deficiently briefed. Cf. Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, ¶53, 126 N.M. 438, 971 P.2d 829 (“Where there is a doubtful or deficient record, every presumption must be indulged ... in favor of the correctness and regularity of the [trial] court’s judgment.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (alteration in original)); State v. Herrera, 2004-NMCA-015, ¶¶ 8-9, 135 N.M. 79, 84 P.3d 696 (observing that “a defendant can waive fundamental rights, including constitutional rights,” and 0, 274 (Ct.App.1977) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we perceive no abuse of
holding that a photograph of the body of the victim at the scene was relevant and admissible because it illustrated clarified and corroborated the testimony of various witnesses holding photograph showing victim with his family photograph fell within the prosecutors latitude in showing victim and was not unduly prejudicial holding that because the photograph of the victim was for identification purposes only and the victims military service was never discussed at trial even if the photograph did evoke sympathy from the jury it was not reversible error to admit it holding autopsy photograph of victim was admissible even if defendant stipulated identity of victim holding that ownership of vehicle and presence at scene of crash sufficiently corroborated appellants statement