1 IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 O pin ionN um

be r: ___ ____ ____ _ 3 Fi lin g D at e: S ep te m

be r 23, 201 4 4 N O. 32, 709 5 STA TE OF NE W MEX ICO, 6 Pl ai nt iff

-Ap pe ll ee, 7 v. 8 GUA DA LUP E F LORES, 9 Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t. 10 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF CU RR Y C OUN TY 11 St ep he n K

. Q uin n, D istri ct Jud ge 12 Gary K. King, Attorney

Ge neral 13 Corinna La szlo-Henr

y , A ssistant Attorney

Ge neral 14 San ta Fe, NM 15 for Appellee 16 Jorge A. Alvar ado, Chief Public De fender 17 W ill O’ Connell, Assistant Appellate D efender 18 San ta Fe, NM 19 fo r Appe llant1 OPIN ION

2 Z AM ORA , Jud ge. 3 { 1} G ua da l u

p e F l o r e s ( D e f

e n d an t ) a p p ea ls h er

c onvi ct ion s f

or m ur de r in the se co nd 4 de gr ee , three count s of a ggr av at ed

ba tte ry w ithade ad ly

w ea pon, a nd o ne c ount

of 5 ag gr av at ed

ba tte ry on a hou se hol d m em

be r. D ef en dant c ont en ds tha t sy ste m at ic 6 rem oval of Spanish-on ly spe ak ing jurors fr om

the j ury panels from

which her j ury 7 wa s chosen vio lated her right to a f air and im partial j ury . D efendant also claim s that 8 the district court abused its discretion by failing to sever the char ges, w hich stemm ed 9 f r o m tw o s e p a r a t e i n c i d e n t s . We c o n c l u d e t h a tD e f e n d a n tf a i l e d t o e s t ab l i s h ap r i ma 1 0 fa c i e ca s e o f s yst emat i c e x cl u s i o n o f S p an i s h -o n l y s p ea k er s fr o m ju ry p an el s . We 11 furthe r co nc lud e tha t the dis tr ic t c ou rt di d no t a buse it s di sc re tio n inde ny ing 12 Defen da nt ’s m ot io n t o s ev er. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm . 13 BACKGRO UND 14 { 2} D e f

e nd ant and Ant ho ny M ah ( M ah) w e r e r om ant i c a l ly invol ved, lived together, 15 an d h adfou r ch il dr en to ge th er. The ch arg es ag ai ns t Def en da nt st emm edf

r o m two 16 se parate inc ide nts inv olv ing D ef en dant and Ma h; o ne oc curr ed in Fe br uary 201 1, a nd 17 th e o th er i n No ve m

be r 20 11

. 18 { 3} O n Fe br

uary 12, 2011 , D ef

en dant w en t loo kin g fo r Mah, w ho was ou t. 19 D ef en dant f ound Mah sitt ing in his par ke d vehi cl e outs ide a re sid en ce w ithaf em al e2

1 passenger. De fendant wa s upset. W itnesses r eported seeing D efendant driv e h er 2 vehicle into the back of Mah’ s vehicle several tim es. D efendant later told p olice that 3 she had run into Mah’ s car bec ause he w as with another w om an. D efendant w as 4 ch arg edwit h a gg rav at edba tt ery on a ho us eh ol d m em be r. 5 { 4} De fendant and Mah continu ed their relationship . O n Novem ber 1, 2011 , Mah 6 w a s d r ivi ng aro und w ithaf

ri en d, Br an don V an n ( V an n) , a nd thr ee f em al e pa sse nge rs . 7 D e f e nd a nt s po t t e d t he g r ou

p a nd app r oa c he d t he i r

v e hi c l e . Whe n M a h no t iced 8 De fendant, he drove away and Def endant followed in her vehicle. De fendant pursued 9 Mah and rear -ended the vehicle he w as driving m ultip le tim es. E ventually , a s Mah 10 be gan to pul l t o th e sid e of the ro ad , D ef en dant hit the ve hic le f

ro m the sid e, a nd the 11 ve hic le f

lip pe d se ve ra l tim es . V an n w as pr onounc ed de ad a t the sc en e. F oll ow ing the 12 cr as h, D ef

en dant w as c harg ed

w ithone c ount

of se co nd d eg re e m

ur de r an d f

our 13 co un ts of a gg rav at edba tt ery wit h a de ad ly w eap on . 14 { 5} The c harges against Def endant from

the Februar

y incident and the Novem ber 15 inc ide nt w er e j oin ed

. P ri or to tr ia l D ef

en dant m ove d to se ve r the c harg es . T he m oti on 16 w as de nie d and the m atte rs w er e tr ie d j oin tly

. D ef en dant w as c onvi ct ed

of a ll ch ar ge s. 17 { 6} D ef

en dant m ove d f

or a ne w tr ia l af

te r le ar nin g tha t al l pr ospe ct ive j ur or s w ho 18 spok e Sp an ishonl y

a nd r equir ed

a n in te rp re te r w er e sy ste m at ic al ly ex cl ude d fr om the 19 j ur y panels fr om

w hic h he r tr ia l j ur

y w as se le ct ed

. T he dis tr ic t c ourt he ld a he ar ing3

1 on the iss ue . T he c ourt cl er k r es pons ibl e fo r se le ct ing j ur y pane ls t es tif

ie d a t the 2 he ar ing

. T he cl er

k te sti fi ed tha t in cr eatin g j ur y pane ls, she put al l Spanis h- onl y 3 spe ak ing pr ospe ct ive j ur or s on one pane l in or de r to m ini m iz e the c ost of int er pr et er s. 4 Inthi s c as e, the j ur

y poo l w as c om

pr ise d of a ppr oxi m at el y

one tho usand p ro spe ct ive 5 j urors. The clerk divid ed them into five panels and assig ned all Spanish-onl y speakers 6 to p an el thr ee . D ef

en dant’ s j ur

y w as se le ct ed fr om pane ls one an d tw o. Inhe r m oti on 7 fo r a ne wtr ia l, D ef

en dant c la im ed

that the cl er

k’ s pra ct ic e dep ri ve d her of a fa ir a nd 8 im part ia l j ur y . T he m oti on w as de nie d. T his appe al f oll ow ed

. 9 DISC US SION 10 A. System atic Exclusion of P rospective Jur ors 11 1. P re se rv at ion 12 { 7} T he S ta te arg ue s th at D ef en dant f ai le d to pr es er

ve he r obj ec tio n to the 13 co m posi tio n of the j ur

y ve nir e bec au se she fa ile d to al er t the dis tr ic t cour

t to th e ba sis 1 4 o f h ercl ai m

wi t h t h e r eq u i s i t e s p ec i fi ci t y t o s at i s fy p re s er v at i o n re qu i re m en t s . We 15 di sa gr ee. 16 { 8} Rule 12-216 NMRAprovides th at a question is p reser ved for appellate re view 17 if i t “ ap pe ar[s ] th ata ru li ng or d eci si on by the d i s t r i c t c o u r t was fai rly inv ok ed

. . . 18 [and f ] urthe r, if aparty ha s no oppo rt

uni ty to obj ec t to a ru lin g or or de r at the ti m e it 19 is m ade, the absence of an obj ection does no t thereaf ter prej udice the party .”4

1 T he pr im ar

y purpo ses of

the pr es er

va tio n r equir em en ts are : ( 1) to 2 spe ci fi ca lly

a le rt the d is tri ct co urt t o ac la im of e rr or so tha t the e rr or 3 m ay

be co rr ec te d at tha t tim e, (2 ) to all owthe opp osi ng p ar ty a de qua te 4 oppo rt

uni ty to re spon d to ac la im

of e rr or , a nd (3) to cr eate asuf fi ci en t 5 re co rd

to al lowthi s C ourt t o m ak e an in fo rm ed de ci sio n r eg ar din g th e 6 co nt es te d i ss ue . 7 State v. M

oncayo , 20 12 -NMCA- 06 6, ¶ 5 , 28 4 P .3d 42 3. 8 { 9} Inthi s c as e, D ef en dant w as not

a w ar e of

the c le rk ’ s j ur

y pane l se lec tio n 9 pr oc ed ur es unt il af

te r he r tr ia l. O nc e Defen dant b ec am e aw ar e tha t S panis h- onl y 10 speaking prospective j urors we re e xcluded from the two j ury

panels from

which her 11 j ury wa s selected, sh e m o v ed fo r a newtrial. The State r espond ed, and the dis trict 12 co urt he ld a

he ar ing on the m oti on. A t the he ar ing , the co urt cle rk te sti fi ed r eg ar din g 13 he r j ur

y pane l se le ct ionpr oc es s. A ft er he ar ing the te sti m ony

a nd ar gum en ts fr om

the 14 parties, the district c ourt r uled on the m erits of the m otion

. Beca use the district court 15 w as a le rt ed

to D ef en dant’ s c la im

of e rro r an d ha d asuf

fi ci en t op portun ity

to fu lly 16 ad dr es s i t, t he is su e was su ffi ci en tl y pre se rv edforou r rev ie w. 17 2. Wa iv er Purs ua nt to NMSA 19 78 , § 38- 5- 16 ( 1969 ) 18 { 10} The State a lso argues that because Defendant d id not objec t to the jury venire 19 com posit ion prior to the em

paneling of the j ury , D efendant w aived her right to object 20 un de r Sec ti on 38 -5 -1 6. We are n ot pe rs ua de d. 21 { 11} De t er m i n i n g wh et h erSection38-5-1 6 b ar s De fe n d an t ’s o b je ct i o n t o t h e c l er k ’s 22 j ur y se le ct ionpr oc es s e ve n th oughD ef en dant w as not

a w ar e of the pr oc ed

ur e unt il5

1 af te r he r tr ia l i s an is sue of statut or y int er pr et at ion

. A cc or din gly , our re vi ew is de 2 no vo . United R en t a l

s Nw ., Inc. v. Yearo ut Mech. , I nc. , 201 0- N MS C- 030, ¶

7, 148 3 N

. M. 426 , 237 P

. 3d 7 28. T he guiding pr inc ipl e w he n c onstru ing statut es is to 4 “ determ ine and give effe ct to legislative int ent.” OS F arms, I nc. v . N .M . A m. W ater 5 Co

. , 200 9- N MC A -1 13, ¶ 19, 147 N

. M. 221 , 218 P

. 3d 1 269 (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks 6 an d c itatio n om itt ed ). T o disc er n the L eg isl at

ur e’ s in te nt, “ w e loo k f

ir st t o th e pla in 7 langua ge of

the statut e, giv ing the w or ds the ir or din ar y m eaning , u nl ess the 8 Le gislature indicates a differ ent one was intended.” M arbo b E ne rgyCo rp. v . N. M

. O il 9 Conservatio n Comm ’n , 200 9- N MS C- 013, ¶ 9, 146 N

. M. 24, 206 P. 3d 1 35 ( al te ratio n, 10 int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks, a nd c itatio n om itt ed ). S ta tut or y langua ge tha t is c le ar

a nd 11 un am bi gu ou s m

us t b e g iv en effe ct

. Tr ino sky v. J ohns ton e , 201 1- N MC A -0 45, ¶ 11, 12 14 9 N.M. 6 05 , 25 2 P .3d 82 9. 13 { 12} Sectio n 3 8 -5 -1 6 states, in pertinent part, that a crim inal defendant “ m ay 14 challenge the j ury

panel on the groun d that the m em bers thereof w ere not se lected 15 sub st a nt i a l l y

i n a c c or danc e w i t h l a w . . . . S uc h ac ha l l e ng e i s w a i ve d i f n ot raised 16 be fo re t he tri al jury pa ne l h as be en swo rn an d s el ect io n o f th e tr ia l ju ry co m m en ced .” 17 By definition, waiver

is “ [t] he volun tary relinquish m ent or ab andonm ent

. . . of a legal 18 right or advantage[.] ” Blac k’ s Law D ictionary 1717 (9th ed. 2009). “ The p ar ty a l l eged6

1 to h av e w a i v e d a r i g h t m u s t h a v e h a d b o th kn o w l e d g e o f t h e e x i s t i n g r i g h t a n d th e 2 intentio n of forgoing it.” Id

. 3 { 13} In th i s c a s e , D e f e n d a n tw a s n o t

a w a r e o f

t h e c l e rk ’ s p o l i c y

t o s e g re ga te 4 Sp an ish -o nly

spe ak ing pr ospe ct ive j ur or s at the tim e he r j ur y w as be ing e m

pane le d. 5 Sh e co uld

not have obj ected to th e pr oc ed ur e in a cc or danc e w ithS ec tio n 38 -5 -1 6 6 b e c a u s e s h e d i dn o tkn o w t h at h ero b je ct i o n wa s wa rr an t ed u n t i l af t erh ert ri al . We 7 do n ot b el ie ve that the L eg isl at ur e int en de d f

or S ec tio n 38 -5 -1 6 to bar obj ec tio ns t o 8 unlawful j ury

selection where a party

does not know the selection process has been 9 unlawful prior to swearing in the prosp ective j ury panel and j ury selection has been 10 co m m en ced . W e d ecl in e to ap pl y th e st atut e in th atway . Se e Sta te v . Ste ve ns , 201 4- 11 NMS C-011, ¶ 15, 323 P.3d 901 (“ It is the high duty and responsib ility of t he j udicial 12 br an chof

gov er nm en t t o fa ci lit at e an d pr om ote the [ L ] eg isl at ur e’ s a cc om

pli shm en t 13 of it s purp ose . A lth ough w e look fi rs t t o th e langua ge of the statut e, w e w ill r ej ec t a 14 fo rm al ist ic a nd m ec hanic al statut or y c onstru ct ionw he n the re sul ts w oul d be absur d, 15 unr ea sona

ble , or c ontrary to the spi ri t of the sta tut e. ” (i nte rn al quot at ionm ar ks and 16 ci ta tio n om itt ed ))

. A cc or din gly , w e co nc lud e tha t D ef en dant d id n ot w ai ve he r ri ght 17 to ob ject t o t he co m

po si ti on of t he jury ve ni re.7

1 3. Re presen tative C ross-Sect ion of the Com m unity 2 { 14} W e turn now to De fendant’ s claim that she wa s deprived of a fair and im partial 3 j ur y a s ar es ult of the sy ste m at ic ex cl usi on of Sp an ish -o nly spe ak er s fr om the m aj or ity 4 of j ur y pane ls i n C ur

ry Co unty . A rt ic le I I, S ec tio n 14 of the N ewMe xic o C onst itu tio n 5 en tit le s cr im ina l def

en dants to a “ tr ia l by

a n im part ia l j ur y , ” w hic h r equir es that the 6 j ury repre sent a “ fair c ros s [-] section of the com m unity .” Sta te v . A rago n , 198 9- 7 N MS C- 077, ¶

¶ 5, 25, 109 N

. M. 197, 784 P. 2d 16. D ef en dant r el ie s he av ily

on A rago n 8 to supp ort he r co nte nti on tha t the sy ste m at ic ex cl usi on o f Sp an ish -o nly spe ak er s f

ro m 9 jury pan el s i s u nc on st it ut io na l. 10 { 15} H ow ev er , D ef

en dant’ s r el iance o n A rago n is m is pl aced

. A rago n inv olv ed a 11 co nst itu tio na l c ha lle nge to a pr ose cu tor ’ s pur pose fu l, dis cr im ina tor

y , an d sy ste m at ic 12 ex er ci se of pe re m

pto ry str ike s to e xc lud e m em

be rs of ac ogni za ble r ac ia l gr oup fr om 13 th e jury pan el

. Id

. ¶ ¶ 9, 15- 16. T his ty

pe of a lle ge d vi ola tio n r equir es a n e xa m ina tio n 1 4 o f t h e p ro s ec u t o r’s co n du ct , an d i n fe re n ce s t h at ca n b e m ad e ab o u tt h e p ro s ec u t o r’s 15 di sc riminat ory

in te nt

. Id

. ¶ 17 (“ [T ] he party

m ay show that [the prosecutor] has struck 16 m ost or a ll of the m em be rs of the ide nti fi ed

gr oup fr om

the ve ni re, or ha s us ed

a 17 dis pr opor

tio na te num

be r of pe re m

pto ri es ag ai nst the gr oup. H e m ay al so d em onstrate 18 tha t the j ur or s in que sti on share onl y thi s one ch ar ac te ri sti c— the ir m em be rs hip in the 19 group—[or]

. . . the failure of [the prosecutor] to engage the sam e j urors in m ore than8

1 de sulto ry vo ir

dir e, or ind ee d to a sk the m

a ny que sti ons at

a ll. ” (i nte rn al quo ta tio n 2 m arks and citation om itted)). 3 { 16} T h i s t yp e o f

a n a l ys i s i s d i s t i n g u i s h ab l e f r o m th e a n a l ys i s w e ap p l y t o c l a i ms 4 that t h e jury

selection process as a w hole has resulted in sy stem atic exclusion of a 5 particular group. T his Court has adop ted a tw o-step t e st f or determ ining whether

there 6 w as avio la tio n of

ade fe ndant’ s c onst itu tio na l rig ht to a jury se le ct ed f ro m af ai r 7 cro ss -s ect io n o f th e c o mm u n i t y from

th e Uni te d S ta te s Su pr em e Co ur t, Duren v. 8 M iss ouri , 439 U. S. 357 (1979). First, t he defendant m ust establis h whether ther e w as 9 a p rima facie vi ol at io n o f th e fai r cro ss -s ect io n re qu ire m en t. 10 [T ] o show a pr im a fa ci e vio la tio n of the f ai r cr oss -s ec tio n r equir em en t, 11 a defe ndant m

ust dem onstrate that (1) the group alleged to be excluded 12 is a ‘ dis tin ct ive ’ gr oup in the c om m uni ty , ( 2) the gr oup’ s r ep re se nta tio n 13 in v en ir es f

ro m w hic h j ur ie s are se le ct ed is not f ai r an d r ea sona

ble in 14 re la tio n to the num be r of suc h pe rs ons in the c om m uni ty , a nd ( 3) thi s 15 unde r- re pr es en ta tio n r es ult s fr om the sy ste m at ic ex cl usi on of the gr oup 16 in th e jury-sel ect io n p ro ces s. 17 Sta te v . Ca sil las , 2009 -N MC A -0 34, ¶ 13, 145 N

. M. 783, 205 P

. 3d 8 30 ( ci tin g Duren , 18 439 U

. S. 357 , 364 ). If th ere wa s apr im a fa ci e vio la tio n, the se co nd p ar t of the te st 19 provides th e governm ent an oppo rtunity to def end its pra ctices by

dem onstrating that 20 a sig nif

ic an t st at e int er es t i s a dvanc ed by the pr oc es s that re sul ts i n th e ex cl usi on o f 21 a d is ti nc ti ve gro up . Duren a t 36 7- 68.9

1 { 17} H e r e , D e f

e nd a nt r e l i e s pr i m a r i l y

o n autho r i t y

r e l a t e d t o pr os e c utorial 2 discrim ination , and do es not address the Duren te st. A s ar es ult , Defendan t ha s no t 3 fu lly de ve lop ed

he r ar gum en t r eg ar din g apr im a fa ci e vio lation of the f ai r cr oss 4 section requirem ent. This Court will not rule on an inadequ ately -briefe d issu e w here 5 doi ng s o w oul d r equir e th is Co urt “ to d ev el op the a rg um en ts i tse lf , e ff ec tiv el y 6 perform ing the parties’ work for them .” Elane Photo grap hy, L LC v. W illock , 201 3- 7 NMSC -0 40 , ¶ 70 , 3 09 P.3 d 5 3, ce rt. de nie d, 134 S

. Ct

. 178 7 ( 2014 ); se e id. (“[W]e 8 ar e not re qui re d to do the ir re se ar ch

. . . . T his cr eate s astr ai n onj udi ci al r es our ce s and 9 a subs tanti al r isk

of er ro r. It is of no be ne fi t ei the r to the part ie s or to f uture li tig an ts 10 fo r thi s C ourt t o pr om ulg at e ca se lawba se d onour ow n sp ec ula tion rathe r than th e 11 part ie s’ c ar ef

ull y c onsi de re d arg um en ts .” (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks and c itatio n 12 om itted)). Our Court has b ee n cl ea r that it is the respons ibilityof the parties to set 13 forth their developed argum ents, it is not the court’ s responsib ility to presum e w hat 14 th ey m ay ha ve in te nd ed

. See H

ea dle y v. M orga n M gm t. Co rp. , 20 05 -NMCA- 04 5, ¶ 15 15, 1 37 M.M. 339, 110 P. 3d 1076 (holdin g that this Court has no du ty to reviewan 16 argum ent that is not adequately developed or guess at what the ar gum ent m ight b e); 17 se e als o In re A dopt ion of D oe , 1984 -N MS C- 024, ¶ 2, 100 N

. M. 764 , 676 P

. 2d 1 329 18 (h old ing w he re a par

ty ci te s no auth or ity

to supp ort an arg um en t, w e m ay a ssu m e no 19 suc h auth or ity

e xis ts)

. T o do oth er

w ise is se tti ng a

ve ry dange ro us p rec ed en t.10

1 Mor eo ve r, fo r us to uni la te ra lly de ve lop D ef en dant’ s co nst itu tio na l ar gum en t, and 2 ru le on tha t ba sis he re , w ou ld de prive the S tate of a n op portun ity

to advanc e an y 3 argum ent it m ay

have regar ding a significant state interest served by the challenged 4 pr oc es s. Th is wou ld res ul t i n a su bs ta nt ia l d is ad va nt ag e to th e St at e. 5 { 18} The sam e disadvantage e xists regar ding De fendant’ s assertion that Article I I, 6 Se ct ion14 o f the New M ex ic o C onst itu tio n pr ovi de s gr eate r pr ote ct ionthan th e 7 fe de ra l c onst itu tio n. T he dis se nt b el ie ve s that D ef en dant has pr es en te d an arg um en t 8 tha t A rago n sho uld

be e xte nde d to pr ohi bit

the a ct ion s of a co urt of

fi ci al that r es ult 9 in all Sp an is h -o nl y

sp eak ers be in g s eg reg at ed . Howev er, A rago n , onl y r el at ed to 1 0 pr ose c u t o r i a l m i s c o n du c t

. T h e m e r e s t a t e m e n t t h a tt h e N e wM e x i c o C o n s t i tu tio n 11 pr ovi de s gr eate r pr ote ct ion doe s not artic ula te howthe gr eate r pr ote ct ionof fe re d by 12 A rt ic le I I, Sect io n 14 app lie s inthi s c ont ex t and, the re fo re , pr ovi de s no ba sis f or 13 response by

the State. The dissent believes that the Duren te st i s “ out of pla ce ” an d 14 shou ld n ot a

ppl y , but if it doe s no t, it

is not c le ar w hat wou ld appl y . A lth oughthe 15 principle of A rago n m ay c onc ei vably

be appl ic ab le , that, wit ho ut m or e, is not 16 argum ent. I n sum , we conclude that De fendant has not m et her burden and has failed 17 to es ta bli sh the sy ste m at ic e xc lus ionof S panis h- onl y

spe ak er s f

ro m the j ur y pane ls.11

1 { 19} T he dis tr ic t c ourt ha s an a ff irm at iv e res pons ibi lity

to em pane l j ur or s ina 2 random

m an ne r. N MS A 197 8, § 38- 5- 11( A ) (2 005)

. A cc or din gly , it is im portant t o 3 str es s th at

the N inth Ju dic ia l D istri ct ’ s c ourt c le rk ’ s sy ste m at ic pol ic y of 4 im perm issib ly

m an i p u l at ing th e j ury

selection process is a m iscarria ge of that 5 re spon sib ili ty

a nd b or de rs on the e gr egio us . B y pla ci ng a ll Sp an ish -o nly spe ak ing 6 pr ospe ct ive j ur or s inone pane l, the c le rk ha s e ffec ti ve ly e xc lud ed the m f ro m a ll of 7 the oth er

pane ls. T his pr oc es s c anpot en tia lly vio la te both th e p ro spe ct ive j ur or s’ r igh t 8 to ser ve an d t h e c r i mina l d efen da nt ’s rig ht to a fai r an d i m pa rti al jury. See State v. 9 Sam ora , 2013-NMS C-038, ¶ 7, 307 P. 3d 328 (“ This Court has rec ogni zed m ore than 10 onc e tha t A rt ic le V II , S ec tio n 3 [ of the N ewMe xic o Co nst itu tio n] unam big uous ly 11 pr ote ct s the ri ght s of Sp an ish -o nly spe ak er s to se rv e on our st at e jurie s. ”) ; se e als o 12 A rago n , 1989- NM SC -0 7 7 , ¶ 25 (“ Article II, Sec tion 1 4, [of the Ne w Me xico 13 Co nst itu tio n] e nti tl[ es the de fe ndant] to aj ur y r ep re se nti ng a

f ai r cr oss [- ] se ct ionof 14 th e co m

m un it y [.]”). 15 { 20} Inthi s c as e, a lth oughthe c le rk ’ s a ct ionis ine xc usa ble , th e re co rd

doe s no t 16 re ve al w he the r Sp an is h-onl y spe ak ing m em

be rs of the j ur y poo l w er e ac tua lly 17 pr ev en te d f

ro m se rv ing a s ar es ult

of the c le rk ’ s pol ic y . I t i s a lso unc le ar w he the r the 18 po li cy res ul te d i n t ria l ju rie s t ha t wer e n ot rep res en ta ti ve of t he co m m un it y .12

1 B. De fend ant’s M otion to Sever Ch arges 2 { 21} Pr ior to tr ia l, D ef en dant m ove d to se ve r the c harg e of a ggr av at ed

ba tte ry on a 3 hous ehold m e m

be r r e l at e d t o the Februar

y incident from

the charges of sec ond-degree 4 m ur de r an d fo ur

c harg es of

a ggr av at ed

ba tte ry w ithade ad ly

w ea pon re la te d to the 5 N ove m be r inc ide nt. T he dis tr ic t c ourt de ni ed th e m oti on t o se ve r fi ndi ng tha t the 6 ev ide nc e w oul d have be enc ro ss- adm iss ibl e, that D ef en dant f ai le d to sho wund

ue 7 prej udice resulting from the j oind er of c harges, and that the evidence of the Februar y 8 incident was rele vant to rebut Defe ndant’s cla im that the No v ember c rash wa s an 9 ac ci de nt. W e re vie wthe de nia l of am oti on t o se ve r fo r an ab use of dis cr et ion

. Sta te 10 v. L ov et t , 201 2- N MS C- 036, ¶ 10, 286 P

. 3d 2 65. 11 { 22} D ef

en dant arg ue s th at

the e vid en ce of the ag gr av at ed ba tte ry on a hou se hol d 12 m em be r w oul d no t be cr oss -a dm iss ibl e bec au se it w as im pr ope r ev ide nc e unde r Ru le 13 11- 404(B) N MR

A

. D ef en dant f urthe r ar gue s th at , e ve n if the e vid en ce w er e cr oss 14 adm iss ibl e, it

sho uld ha v e b e e nk ep t ou t be ca

use the pr oba tiv e va lue w as sub stanti al ly 15 outw ei ghe d by

the dange r of

unf ai r pr ej udi ce und er

Ru le 11- 403 N MR

A

. T he S ta te 16 contends that the evidence would be cross-adm issib le because it shows i n t en t (that 17 the c oll isi on b etw ee n th e tw o ve hic le s w as not a n a cc ide nt) , a nd b ec au se it w as not 18 m or e p reju di ci al th an pro ba ti ve .13

1 { 23} Rule 5-203(A) N MRArequires th e State to j oin certa in charges if the offenses 2 “ (1 ) ar e of the sa m e or sim ilar ch ar ac te r, e ve n if not part of asin gle sc he m e or

plan; 3 or (2) are based on the sam e conduct or on a series of ac ts either connected together 4 or constitu ting p arts of a sing le schem e or plan.” Sta te v . G all egos , 200 7- N MS C- 007, 5 ¶¶ 10, 141 N .M. 18 5, 152 P

. 3d 8 28. H ow ev er , “ a [d istri ct ] c ourt m ay abuse it s 6 dis cr et ionin fa ili ng t o se ve r ch ar ge s” if the re is p re j udi ce to the a cc use d. I

d. ¶ ¶ 9, 16. 7 { 24} In determ ining whether a district court’ s failure to sever resulted in prej udice 8 to the defendant, w e m ust first determ ine whether t h e ev idence pertaining to each 9 ch ar ge w oul d be c ro ss- adm iss ibl e in s ep ar at e tr ia ls. Id. ¶ 19 ( “ [T ] he re is a hig h r isk 10 of und ue pr ej udi ce w he ne ve r j oin de r of co unt s all ow s evid en ce of oth er c ri m es to be 11 intro duc ed

in a tr ia l of charg es w ith re spe ct to w hic h the ev ide nc e w oul d othe rw ise 12 be ina dm iss ibl e. O n th e oth er hand, c ro ss- adm iss ibi lity of e vid en ce dis pe ls any 13 inference of prej ud i c e . ” ( a l t e r at i on s, internal quotatio n m arks, and citations o m itted)). 14 { 25} W e determ ine cross-adm issib ility through an analy sis of Rule 11-404 (B). See 15 Lo ve tt , 201 2- N MS C- 036, ¶ 37; G all egos , 200 7- NMSC- 007, ¶ ¶ 20- 21. Ru le 11- 16 404( B) (1 ) sta te s: “ E vid en ce of a cr im e, w ro ng, or oth er a ct is not a dm iss ibl e to p ro ve 17 a person’ s charac ter in order to show th at on a particular occ asion the person acted 18 in a ccordance with the charac ter. ” Nonetheless, evidence of a cr im e, wr ong, or other 19 ac t m ay

be use d f or a nothe r pur

pose , “ suc h a s pr ovi ng m oti ve , opp ortun ity , int en t,14

1 pr ep ar at ion , plan, kno w le dge , ide nti ty , abse nc e of m ist ak e, or

la ck of a cc ide nt. ” Ru le 2 11-404 (B)( 2). T he district court m ay adm it evidence of prior a ct s where such 3 ev id en ce i s re le va nt to a m at eri al is su e o th er t ha n t he de fen da nt ’s cha ract er. State v. 4 Martinez , 199 9- N MS C- 018, ¶ 30, 127 N

. M. 207, 979 P. 2d 718. H ow ev er , the state 5 m us t “ id en ti fy

an d a rti cu la te th e co ns eq ue nt ia l fa ctto whi ch th e ev id en ce i s direct ed .” 6 G all egos , 200 7- N MS C- 007, ¶ 22. 7 { 26} He re, the evidence rele vant t o t h e charge of batter y on a househ old m em

ber, 8 ar isi ng f

ro m the F eb ru ar

y inc ide nt, w oul d have be enc ro ss- adm iss ibl e unde r Ru le 11- 9 404( B) (2 ). T he e vid en ce of the fi rs t inc ide nt, dur ing w hic h D ef en dant p ur

pose fu lly 10 ran her vehicle into Ma h’ s vehicle after finding h im

in the com

pany of another 11 w om an , c oul d sh ow tha t she pur pose fu lly co lli de d w ith the ve hic le Mah w as dr ivi ng 12 in N ove m

be r, w he n sh e onc e aga in found him in the co m pany of oth er

w om en . T his 13 evidence does not n ecessar ily im ply that De fendant has the propensi t y or chara cter 14 to beh av e dan ge ro usl y , w hic h w oul d be im pr ope r ch ar ac te r ev ide nc e unde r Ru le 11- 15 404( B) (1 ). Rathe r, it is p er m iss ibl e unde r Ru le 11- 404( B) (2 ). W e co nc lud e tha t the 16 di st ric t co ur t d id no t ab us e it s d is cret io n b y de nyin g Def

en da nt ’s m ot io n t o s ev er. 17 CON CLU SION 18 { 27} F o r

t h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s w e a f

f i rm.15

1 { 28} IT IS S O ORDERE D.

2

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 3 M . M ON IC A Z A M OR A , Ju dg e

4 I CONCUR:

5

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 6 JA M ES J. WE C HS LE R , Ju dg e

7 LIND A M . V AN Z I, Jud ge, ( dissenting).16

1 V A N Z I, Ju dg e (d iss en ti ng ) 2 { 29} D ef

en dant h as a rg ue d inthe dis tr ic t c ourt and on appe al that the sy ste m at ic a nd 3 co m ple te e xc lus ionof

S panis h- onl y

spe ak er s f

ro m the pane ls f

ro m w hic h he r pe tit 4 j ur y w as dr awn vi ola te d he r ri ght to a ve nir e tha t r ep re se nte d ac ro ss- se ct ionof the 5 c o m m u n i t y . T h e j u ry c l e rk f o r t h e N i n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t t e s t i f i e d t ha t sh e 6 intentio nally

m anipulated th e j ury

venire to ensure th at all Spanish-only speakers 7 we re place d on a sing le separate panel in order to save the costs of hiring addition al 8 i nterpreter s. T his practice of segre gating Spanis h-speaking v enire m em bers 9 potenti ally

violates the six th am endm ent to the United States Constitu tion, Article II, 10 Se ct ion14 o f the N ew

Me xic o C ons t i tut ion , a nd S ec tio n 38 -5 -1 1( A ) (“ T he c ourt sh al l 11 em pane l j ur or s inar an dom

m an ne r. ”)

. G ive n th e na tur e of the r igh ts at st ak e of

both 12 a pr os pe ctive j ur or ’ s r igh t t o se rv e an d ac ri m ina l de fe ndant’ s r igh t t o af ai r an d 13 im part ia l j ur y , I c an not

j oinin ¶¶

14- 19 o f the m aj or ity ’ s O pin ion

. 14 { 30} I am

fully aw are of the im

portance of ensuring that litig ants a dequately brief 15 relevant issues on app eal. Howev er , this concern should n ot prevent review of an 16 alleged constitu tional vi olation that the m aj ority itself recognizes is a “ m iscarria ge” 17 of j udi ci al r es pons ibi lity

that “bor de rs on the e gr eg iou s. ” Ma j or ity O p. ¶ 18. I a lso 18 believe that Def

endant’ s briefing is adequate. D efend an t argues that Ar ticle II, 19 Se ct ion14 o f th e N ewMe xic o C onst itu tio n pr ovi de s gr eate r pr ote ct ionthan it s17

1 fe de ra l c ount erpart . De fe ndant c ite s A rago n , which adopt ed California’ s “ Wheeler 2 D oc tr ine , ” ex te ndi ng the state c onst itu tio n’ s f ai r cr oss -s ec tio n gu ar an te e to p re ve nt 3 pr ose cu tor s f

ro m usi ng r ac ia lly

dis cr im ina tor

y pe re m pto ry ch al le nge s a t the 4 im pane lin g sta ge . 1989 -N MS C- 077, ¶¶ 21- 23; see S tate v. Gonzales , 19 91 -NMCA5 007, ¶ 34, 111 N

. M. 590 , 808 P

. 2d 4 0 ( hol din g th at the sa m e ratio na le ap pl ies t o 6 pr ev en t di sc ri m inat ionon the ba sis of ge nde r)

. I n A rago n , our S uprem e Court 7 de part ed

f ro m f ed er al c ro ss- se ct ionpr ec ed en t, r ea soni ng tha t “ the state sho uld not be 8 ab le to ac co m

pli sh i ndi re ct ly

a t the se le ct ionof

the pe tit j ur y w ha t it ha s no t be enable 9 to acco m

pl is h d ire ct ly at th e se le ct io n o f th e v en ire .” 19 89

- N M S C

- 0 7 7 , ¶ 23 . I 10 int er pr et D ef en dant’ s arg um en t as a n in vit at ionto ex te nd this r ea soni ng t o 11 D ef en dant’ s si tua tio n, w he re ac ourt of fi ci al r athe r than th e St at e ha s in te nti ona lly 12 m an ipu la te d th e ve nir e pane ls t o to ta lly e xc lud e Sp an ish -o nly

spe ak er s f

ro m the 1 3 a c tu a l ju ry. 14 { 31} I se e no r e a s o n w h y w e c a n n o tc o n s i d e r

D e f e n d a n t ’ s a r g u m e n t

. I , li ke 15 D ef en dant, f ind it dif fi cu lt to d ist ing uis h be tw ee n apr ose cu tor ’ s ex erci se of 16 perem ptory challenges to e xclude a particular group from the j ury panel, and a court 17 of fi ci al ’ s abil ity to unil at er al ly ac co m pli sh the sa m e re sul t. Whil e the standard s f or 1 8 me a s u r i n g t h e d i s c r i mi n a t o ry u s e o f p e r e mp t o ry s t r i k e s ma y b e o f n o u s e h e r e , i n my17 I al so not e tha t w e ap pli ed thi s te st i n Ca sil las onl y be ca use the de fe ndant i n 1 18 tha t c as e did

not pr es er ve an ar gum en t tha t the sta te c onst itu tio n w as vio la te d. 200 9- 19 NMC A- 034, ¶ 11. D efendant here has preserved her argum ent under Article II, 20 Se ct ion14 o f the N ewMe xic o C onst itu tio n. 18 1 v i ew , th e m aj o ri t y’ s t es t ad o p t ed f r o m Duren seem s to be equally out of place. 1 2 Ma j or ity O p. ¶ ¶ 16- 17. 3 { 32} The Duren appr oa chf oc use s onund er

re pr es en ta tio n, pr ove n by statis tic al ly 4 quanti fi ab le dis pari ty

le ve ls b etw ee n th e j ur

y poo l and the j ur

y -e lig ibl e popu la tio n, 5 an d i s u n c o n cern edwit h t he m ak eup o f th e actua l p et it jury pa ne l. See Lockhart v. 6 McC ree , 476 U

. S. 162, 173 (1 986)

. Re qui ri ng D ef en dant to p ro ve that S panis h- onl y 7 spe ak er s, w ho ar e co nst itu tio na lly pr ote ct ed in thi s sta te , co nst itu te a di st in ct ive 8 group, and requiring Defe ndant to present census data and other statistical evidence 9 to d em onstrate that— at a n in cl usi on r at e of

z ero pe rc en t—the y

a re sy ste m at ic al ly 10 unde rr ep re se nte d, s eem s to m e ane xe rc ise in fu til ity that i gnor es the he ar

t of the 11 issue: Do es Ar ticle II, Sec tion 1 4 of the Ne w Me xico Const itutio n allow a c ourt 12 of fi ci al to re m ove a ll Sp an ish -o nly spe ak er s fr om a j ur

y pane l, sol el y ba se d onthe ir 13 langua ge , w he n apr ose cu tor li ke ly c an not ? 14 { 33} E ve n if the D ure n ap pr oa chappl ie s, I dis ag re e w iththe m aj or ity ’ s st at em en t 15 that apply ing th e test and ruling on the issue woul d d ep riv e the State of an 16 oppo rt

uni ty to advanc e its int er es t in co nt inued e xc lus ion

. T he S ta te a rt ic ula te d it s19

1 int er es t i n a wr itt en re spon se a nd a t a he ar ing on D ef

en dant’ s m oti on f

or ane wtr ia l. 2 I do not believe that econom ic concerns, leave alone un subs tantiated ones, can j ustify 3 the N inth Judic ia l D istri ct ’ s pr ac tic e of sy ste m at ic al ly

sta ck ing it s j ur

y pane ls— a 4 pr ac tic e tha t a

ppe ar s to r em ai n ine ff

ec t t oday . I r es pe ct fu lly

dis se nt.

5

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 6 LI N D A M . V A N Z I, Ju dg e