the September 5 hearing was insufficient. While the State explained that the crime lab reports were pending based on the analysis of the clothing found at Defendant’s apartment, there was no explanation for the lab’s four-month delay. Officer Campbell also briefly explained the substation was somewhat disorganized because of the “Big I” construction, but he did not elaborate on why this would delay the report. Without providing a record to better explain the delay, the State has failed to meet its burden of persuasion. On balance, we find the State was negligent in failing to provide discovery before mid-September. Therefore, this delay, and the resulting continuance on October 4, 2000, weigh heavily against the State. See Tortolito, 1997-NMCA-128, ¶¶ 12-13, 124 N.M. 368, 950 P.2d 811 (<HOLDING>). {20} On the other hand, the failure to
holding phrase based upon or attributable to is not ambiguous and rejecting secondary suit construction holding that such claims however cannot be brought directly against the state or a state agency but only against state officials in their official capacities holding a suit against an agency of the state is a suit against the state holding unreasonable delays attributable to the states negligence or willfully oppressive conduct in dna testing weigh heavily against the state whereas delays attributable to the labs normal priorities and procedure weigh less heavily against the state holding that comparable provision  502b6 does not literally apply to limit claims of landlord against guarantordebt or and that equities weigh against limiting claim