crime only requiring proof that the accused knew he possessed the illegal substance or item when he entered the jail. The State further argues that the district court improperly suppressed physical evidence that was obtained after Defendant’s statement in response to the questionnaire. We note at the outset that Defendant did not move for-nor did the district court order-suppression of the marijuana found in Defendant’s possession at the DACDC. To the contrary, Defendant’s motion to dismiss the charge of bringing contraband into jail was based on his legal argument that he could not be guilty of the crime based on the undisputed facts; it was on this basis that the district court dismissed the charge. See State v. Foulenfont, 119 N.M. 788, 790, 895 P.2d 1329, 1331 (Ct.App.1995) (<HOLDING>). Because there is no order suppressing
holding that the trial court erred by granting the defendants motion to dismiss holding that the trial court did not violate due process in considering the defendants motion to dismiss because the defendant had corrected its error in not serving its motion to dismiss on the plaintiff and because the plaintiff had received adequate time to consider and respond to the arguments made in the motion holding that where an issue is raised in the district court but raised late and the district court declines to deem the issue waived the issue may be raised on appeal holding that the district court had authority under rule 5601 nmra to dismiss charges where the defendants pretrial motion raised a purely legal issue and the state did not dispute the defendants characterization of the factual predicate underlying the charges holding that where it was clear that the court of appeals had limited the issues on resentencing to the one issue raised in the defendants first appeal the district court did not err in declining to consider other issues raised by the defendant on remand