ensure that officers who engage in investigative and prosecutorial activities testify. See Christian, 119 N.M. at 782, 895 P.2d at 682. Defendant argues in this regard that Mr. Young’s report falls within this category because the Crime Lab prepares such reports of controlled substances “to help law enforcement agencies investigate and prosecute cases.” However, although Mr. Young’s laboratory report was a part of the State’s case, Mr. Young did not engage in investigative or prosecutorial activities. As Ms. Elenbaas testified, Mr. Young’s responsibility as a forensic chemist at the Crime Lab with regard to the evidence in this ease was to conduct an analysis and prepare a report following protocols that are reviewed by the Crime Lab’s accrediting body. See Dedman, 2004-NMSC-037, ¶ 30 (<HOLDING>). The district court did not abuse its
holding that a process under which a report is prepared that is routine nonadversarial and made to ensure an accurate measurement indicated that the report was not investigative or prosecutorial holding that investigative report regarding potential premises liability claim was protected work product holding that defendants use of investigative report to refresh witnesss recollection waived defendants work product privilege as to that part of the report that related to the testimony offered holding that rule was not violated where officer stated he made a report but was unable to find it because there was no report to tender to counsel holding that police report of witnesss statement was inadmissible because witness had not adopted report as accurate when matter was fresh in his memory