With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". drugs. However, the criminal record produced by Employer is of little probative value, since we cannot glean from the record whether methamphetamine was involved in the crime or whether the violation was for distribution or possession. In addition, the violation occurred in 1988, sixteen years before Worker’s accident. {30} Employer did not present any further evidence indicating that Worker had used methamphetamine in the days leading up to the accident. Since Employer raised Worker’s drug use as an affirmative defense, which would bar recovery by Worker’s estate pursuant to Section 52-1-12, Employer had the burden of proving that Worker’s accident was “occasioned solely by” his drug use. See Estate of Mitchum v. Triple S Trucking, 113 N.M. 85, 91, 823 P.2d 327, 333 (Ct.App.1991) (<HOLDING>); see also J.A. Silversmith, Inc. v.

A: recognizing laches as an affirmative defense
B: recognizing section 52112 as an affirmative defense
C: recognizing the affirmative defense of usury
D: holding that laches is an affirmative defense
B.