difficult to obtain, and we consider Defendant’s argument in that regard to be unpreserved. Rule 12-216(A) NMRA. See State v. Paiz, 1999-NMCA-104, ¶23, 127 N.M. 776, 987 P.2d 1163. {27} Dr. Williams’ opinion went as far as describing typical date rape drug symptoms and stating that they were consistent with what Victim had described. Dr. Williams gave no testimony indicating that Victim was telling the truth or bolstering her statements either on or off the stand. That Defendant argues now that he was surprised by the testimony does not resonate under the circumstances of this case. An expert may testify that symptoms described by an alleged victim of rape are consistent with the administration of a drug to facilitate the attack. See Sera v. State, 341 Ark. 415, 17 S.W.3d 61, 79 (2000) (<HOLDING>), rev’d on other grounds by Sera v. Norris, 400
holding that an experts testimony that a victims symptoms were consistent with administration of a date rape drug were admissible holding that testimony that a childs symptoms were consistent with csaas could not be offered to prove the child was abused holding that the improper admission of hearsay testimony from two witnesses whose testimony was brief and consistent with the victims testimony did not constitute drumbeat repetition of the victims statements holding that the testimony of an expert witness is admissible when the witness outlines the general characteristics of sexually abused children and then states that the victims symptoms are consistent with those characteristics holding inadmissible an agents testimony that certain activities were consistent with those of an experienced drug trafficker