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: N OV EM BE R 23, 201 5 4 N O. 33, 405 5 A R T B U ST OS , P er son al R ep re se nt at ive 6 fo r the ESTAT E OF J UVENTI NO HERNANDEZ , 7 De ceased, OD ILIA P ALM A D E C EBA LLOS, Wife, 8 DEN ISE A LEJAN DR A C EBA LLOS- PA LMA , D aughter, 9 individually, and ODILIAPA LMADE CE BAL LOS, as Paren t 10 and N ext F riend of GU AD ALU PE CE BAL LOS- PA LMAand 11 SA RA H C EBA LLOS- PA LMA , M inor C hildren , 12 Pl ai nti ff

s- Appe llants , 13 v. 14 CITYOF CL OVIS , C LOV IS P OLICE DE PA RTM ENT , 15 OFF ICER S D OUGFO RD , E RIC MU LLER , and 16 D A V ID BR

Y A N T, In di vid ua llyan d in t he ir of fi ci al 17 capacities , 18 D ef

en dants -Appe lle es . 19 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF CU RR Y C OUN TY 20 A lb er t J. M it ch el l Jr . , D ist ri ctJu dg e 21 Lindsey

Law F irm , L .L .C. 22 Daniel R. L indsey 23 Cl ov is , NM 24 fo r Appe llants1 Beall & B iehler

2 Gr egory

L. Biehler 3 Gianna M. Mendoza 4 Albuquerque, N M 5 for Appellees1 OPIN ION

2 VIGIL, Ch ief Judge. 3 { 1} This case requires us to revisit the requirem ents for im posin g joint and several 4 lia bil ity on the or igi na l t ortf

ea sor w he n ther e ar e suc ce ssi ve tortf ea sor s. W e co nc lud e 5 that the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in gr an tin g su m

m ar y j udgm en t on Pla int if

fs ’ w ro ngf

ul 6 de ath c la im

a ft er r uli ng a s am atte r of

lawthat j oin t and s ev er al l ia bil ity doe s no t 7 ap pl y in th is cas e. 8 { 2} In addition , w e agre e w ith Plaintiffs that Def en d ants’ use of perem

ptory 9 ch al le nge s r es ult ed

in the unc onst itu tio na l ex cl usi on o f H isp an ic s f ro m the j ur y , a nd 10 th e de fen se ve rd ic ts on th e cl ai m s th at were tri ed m us t th eref or e be s e t asi de

. See 11 Batson v. K

entucky , 476 U

. S. 79, 85 ( 1986 ) (h old ing that ra ci al dis cr im inatio n inthe 12 j ury selection in a crim inal case of fe n ds the Equal Protection Clause of the U nited 13 St at es Co nst itu tio n) ; E dm onso n v. L eesv ill e Co nc re te Co

. , 500 U

. S. 614 , 616 ( 1991 ) 14 (h old ing that a

pr ivate li tig an t i n ac ivi l c as e m ay not use pe re m

pto ry c ha lle nge s to 15 ex cl ud e juro rs on acco un t o f th ei r rac e). 16 { 3} Fi na ll y , we su m m ari ly add res s Pl ai nt iff

s’ rem ai ni ng arg um en ts . 17 I. BACK GROUND 18 A. Fact s2

1 { 4} Juventi no Ceballos Hernandez, a Mexican nati o n al with a w ife and three 2 ch ildre n, c am e to the Unit ed S ta te s w ithava lid

vis a to C lov is, N ewMe xic o. Mr. 3 H er nand ez st ay ed

w ithf ri en ds, Cr

uz a nd P etra

Ch av ez , the ir

thr ee c hil dr en , a nd 4 Cr uz ’ s br oth er

I van. 5 { 5} Abo ut on e m on th lat er, Mr. Hern an de z su ffer edfro m so m e type o f ep is od e. He 6 w as e at ing w iththe Ch av ez f am ily a nd b eg any el ling an d po un ding hi s f ist s onthe 7 ta ble

. P etra w en t ne xt door to ask he r ne ighbor , w ho spe ak s En gli sh, to ca ll fo r he lp. 8 Th e n e i g h b o r c a l l e d 9 1 1 t e l l i n g t h e d i s p a t c h e r t h a t M r . H e rn a n d e z wa s g o i n g “ c r a z y” 9 an d to ple as e se nd h el p. 10 { 6} Of

ficer s Bry ant and Muller arr ived at the Chavez’ s residence. They knocked 11 an d y el le d, “ pol ic e” but did not re ce ive a n answ er . T he y he ar d bangi ng and y el lin g, 12 w hic h m ad e O ff

ic er Br y an t w an t t o in ve sti ga te the pos sib ili ty of ac ri m e. T he doo r 1 3 w a s o p e n , s o O f

f i c e r B rya n ts t e p p e di n s i d e , w i t h O f f i c e r M u l l e r j u s tb e h i n dh i m. 14 Of ficer Bry an t s aw Mr. He rnandez sitting at the table eating, banging on the table, 15 an d y el li ng. M r. H er

nande z tur

ne d aro und to f

ac e the of fi ce rs , sm ile d, w av ed , a nd 16 the n c ont inu ed

e at ing , bangi ng o n th e ta ble , a nd y el lin g. H ow ev er , he w as not 17 harm ing a nythi ng o r an y body , an d no v iol en ce w as takin g pl ac e. Mr

. H er nande z did 18 not re spon d to questions O ffice r Bry ant y elled at him in English, and althoug h Off icer3

1 Bry ant knew that Mr. Hernandez spo ke Spanish, Officer Bry ant continu ed to y ell at 2 Mr. He rnandez. 3 { 7} Su dde nly , a nd w ith out pr ovoc at ion , Mr

. H er nande z ran to w ar d th e of

fi ce rs a nd 4 punched or h it them . Off icer Bry ant arre sted Mr. He rnandez for battery on a police 5 officer , took him

into po lice custody , and in t en d ed t o take him to ja il. T he officer s 6 handcuffed Mr. He rnandez, but when they started taking him

out the door, Mr. 7 He rnandez kicked the door, and they all fell to the floor. Of

ficer s Bry ant and Muller 8 he ld M r. H er

nande z dow n onthe f

loo r unt il O ff

ic er s F or d and L ongl ey

a rr ive d. T he 9 of fi ce rs w er e abl e to g et

Mr H er nande z out sid e af

te r put tin g hi m

in an kle c uf

fs a nd 10 se curi ng the a nkl e cu ff s to the handc uf

fs be hi nd hi m

by a tta ch ing astr ap or

adog 11 le as h be tw ee n th e an kle c uf fs a nd the handc uf

fs

. 12 { 8} W ith Mr. H er

nande z “ hogt ie d” in thi s m an ne r, the f our of fi ce rs c ar ri ed or 13 dr a gg e d M r . H e rnand e z ou t si de

. O nc e ou t si de of t he ho m e , M r . H e rnandez wa s 14 dr ag ge d do w n th e dr ive w ay , an d he suf fe re d a br as ion s onhis thi ghs. Whe n aw itn es s 15 sawthe of

fi ce rs dr ag gin g Mr. H er

nande z ac ro ss the r oughdr ive w ay on h is thig hs, she 16 “ wa s horrified by

what they

did, because it w as like they we re laughing lik e they

had 17 w on. ” Pl ai nti ff

s pr es en te d e xpe rt te sti m ony that re str ai nin g Mr

. H er nande z w iththe 18 hogt ie vio la te d po lic e standard s of c ar e unde r the c ir cu m stanc es .4

1 { 9} When the am

bulance arrived, Mr. He rnandez w as in the m iddle of t he driveway 2 on his stom ach. His hands wer e held behind h im by the handcuffs, and hi s legs wer e 3 be nt at the kne es , sti ck ing up in the ai r. Mr

. H er nande z’ s th igh s w er e ab ra de d f ro m 4 be ing dr ag ge d a cr oss the r oughpa ve m en t, a nd h e ha d bl ood co m ing f ro m his m outh. 5 T he E MT s pu t M r. H er nande z on alon g ba ck

board f ac e dow n and l oa de d hi m ont o 6 the str et ch er . O n th e ba ck board , the E MT s se cure d M r. H er nande z w ithspi de r str ap s. 7 Sp ide r str ap s have tw o po int s a t the to p, tw o po int s a t the bot tom , a nd thr ee str ap s 8 ac ro ss the m idd le that hook on ea ch sid e. O ff ic er Br y an t ro de in the a m

bul an ce w ith 9 Mr. He rnandez as he wa s under arre st and in po lice custody . Mr . H ernandez ar rived 10 at the e m er ge nc y

r oom ly ing f ac e dow n onthe ba ck bo ard w iththe handc uf fs a nd 11 ankle cuffs fa stened, in addition to the s p ider straps. H is hands and feet w ere tied 12 tog ethe r be hin d hi s ba ck , his f ee t c ro sse d. 13 { 10} D r. T hib ode au

w as in ch ar ge of

Mr

. H er nande z’ s tr eatm en t a t the hos pit al , a nd 14 she m ad e t he d e c i si ont o ke e p M r . H e rnand e z r e str a i ne d w i t h hi s hand s a nd f eet 15 boun d to ge the r be hin d his ba ck

. H er plan w as to k ee p M r. H er nande z fa ce down and 16 in the restraints u ntil he wa s calm and then rem ove the restraints. In order to calm Mr. 17 He rnandez as quickly as possib le, and get him ou t of the shackles, D r. Thibodeau 18 pr ov id edhi m

wit h m ed ic at io ns to ch em ic al ly calm hi m do wn.5

1 { 11} A f

t e r th e m ed ic at io ns were ad m in is te red , Mr. Hern an de z qui t b reat hi ng . A 2 nur se w ho w as w ith him ca lle d a co de blu e, an d the of fi ce rs w en t i nto the r oom a nd 3 rem ove d th e re str ai nts . T he hos pit al sta ff r es usc itate d M r. H er

nande z, how ev er , he 4 suf fe re d br ai n dam ag e an d w as in ave ge ta tiv e state f or the ne xt s ev enm onths. H is 5 fam ily r et ur ne d hi m to Me xic o w he re he sub se que ntl y die d. 6 B. Pr ocedur al History 7 { 12} T he e state of

Mr

. H er nande z an d hi s fam ily

( Pl ai nti ff s) f ile d su it ag ai nst

the 8 C i t y o f C l o v i s , t h e i n d i v i du a l p o l i c e o f f i c e r s , t h e h o s p i t a l , a n d D r . T h i b o d e au . C l a i ms 9 w er e m ad e fo r w ro ngf ul d eath, ne gli ge nt i nf

lic tio n of e m ot ion al dis tr es s, los s of 10 consortiu m , batter

y , e xcess ive force under 42 U.S .C. § 1983 (2012), and m edical 11 m alpractice

. Prior to tr ial, the hosp ital and Dr

. Thibodeau sett l ed t h e m edical 1 2 m al p ra ct i ce cl ai m s wi t h t h e f amil y an dh ad n o fu rt h eri n v o l v emen ti n t h e c a s e . We 13 therefore ref

er to the City

of Clovis an d t h e i ndiv idual po lice office rs herein as 14 D ef en dants . P ri or

to tr ia l the dis tr ic t c ourt a lso gr an te d su m m ar y j udgm en t i n f

av or 15 of D ef en dants on the w ro ngf

ul d eath c la im an d di sm iss ed th e cl ai m

f or ne gli ge nt 16 in fli ct io n o f em ot io na l d is tre ss . 17 { 13} T he part ie s w en t t o tr ia l onthe ba tte ry , e xc es siv e fo rce, negl ige nc e, a nd l oss 18 of c onso rt ium cl ai m s. T he dis tr ic t co urt gr an te d D ef en dants a dir ec te d ve rd ic t onthe 19 ba tte ry , a nd the j ur

y f ound f or D ef en dants on the r em ai nin g c la im s.6

1 { 14} Plain t i ff

s ap peal raising eleven issues bu t onlybrief f ive. T he issues briefed 2 ar e: ( 1) w he the r sum

m ar y j udgm en t was pr ope rl y

gr an te d onthe w ro ngf

ul d eath 3 claim ; (2) w he the r de fe nse c ouns el ’ s pe re m pto ry str ike s r es ult ed

in the 4 uncons titutio nal exclusion of H ispanics from the j ury ; (3 ) whe the r

the d i r e c ted verdict 5 on the ba tte ry cl ai m w as pr ope rl y gr an te d; ( 4) w he the r the re w as e rr or in ex cl udi ng 6 the te sti m ony of Pl ai nti ff s’ ex pe rt w itn es s on he doni c da m ag es ; and ( 5) w he the r the 7 v er d i ct s h o u l db e s et as i d e du e to d ef en s e co u n s el ’s s t at emen t s du ri n g v o i r d i re . We 8 ad dr es s th e fi rs t tw o is sue s se parate ly a nd s um m ar ily a ddr es s th e re m ai nin g is sue s, 9 inc lud ing tho se that w er e not br ie fe d. 10 II. SU M M A R

Y JU D GM EN T O N TH E W R ON GF U L D EA TH C LA IM 11 { 15} Pl ai nti ff

s’ w ro ngf ul death cl ai m w as ba se d up on N ewMe xic o to rt lawa nd f or 12 a violation of con stitut ional rights under 42 U. S. C. § 198 3.T he district court granted 13 D ef en dants ’ m oti on f

or sum m ar y j udgm en t onthe ba sis that “ lia bil ity on the part

of 14 th e o ffi cers en ds whe n Mr. Hern an de z was de li ve redto th e [e]m erg en cy [r]oo m .” We 15 rev ers e o n t he New Mex ic o t or t l aw cl ai m an d a ffi rm

on th e fed eral cla im

. 16 A. Stand ard of R eview 17 { 16} “ Sum

m ar y j udgm en t i s a

ppr opr ia te w he re the re ar e no ge nui ne iss ue s of 18 m aterial f

act and the m ovant is enti tled to judgm ent as a m atter of law .” Self v. United 19 Parcel Serv. , I

nc. , 1998-NMS C-046, ¶ 6, 126 N. M. 396 , 9 7 0 P. 2d 58 2. “ On appeal7

1 fr om the gr an t of

sum m ar y j udgm en t, w e or din ar ily

r ev ie wthe w hol e re co rd in the 2 light m ost f

avorable to the party oppo sing sum m ary j udgm ent to dete rm ine if th ere 3 is any evidence that places a genuine issue of m aterial f act in disput e. ” Ci tyof 4 Albuqu erque v. BP

LW Arc hitects & Eng’rs, Inc. , 2009-NMC A- 081, ¶ 7, 146 N.M. 5 717, 213 P

. 3d 1 146. W e re vie wsum m ar y j udgm en t de nov o an d w e re sol ve a ll 6 re as ona

ble inf er en ce s in fav or of the non -m ovant and v ie wthe ple ad ing s, a ff idavit s, 7 de posi tio ns, a nsw er s to int er ro ga torie s, a nd a dm iss ion s inali ght m ost f av or ab le to 8 a tr ia l o n t he m eri ts . See R omero v. Philip Morris Inc. , 201 0-NMSC- 035, ¶ 7, 148 9 N. M. 713, 242 P. 3d 28 0. W e do so because N ewMexico courts “ view sum m ary 10 j udgm ent with disfavor, pre ferr ing a trial on the m erits.” Id

. ¶8. “ To deter

m ine which 11 fact s ar e m at eri al , th e co ur t m us t l oo k t o th e su bs ta nt iv e la w go ve rn in g th e d is pu te .” 12 Id

. ¶ 11 ( int er

na l qu otatio n m ar

ks and ci ta tion om itt ed ). I n th is c as e, m ult ipl e 13 tortf ea sor li ab ili ty and 4 2 U

. S. C. § 19 83 are the substanti ve lawgov er nin g th e 1 4 w r o n g f

u l d e a t h c l a i m. 15 B. Mult iple Tort feasor Liability 16 { 17} U nde r N ewMe xic o’ s pure c om parativ e fa

ult ru le s, “ w he n c onc ur re nt 17 tortfeasors ne gl ig en tl y cau se a si ng le , indivisi ble inj ur y . . . ea ch tortf

ea sor is se ve ra lly 18 responsib le for its o wn perce ntage of com parative fa

ult for that injury .” Payne v

. 19 H all , 2006-NMS C-029, ¶ 11, 139 N. M. 659, 137 P. 3d 59 9 (emphasis in origin al);8

1 G ulf I ns. Co

. v . Co tto ne , 2006-NMC A- 150, ¶ 20, 140 N. M. 728, 148 P. 3d 81 4. O ther 2 ru le s a ppl y w he n su cc es siv e tortf

ea sor s ne gli ge ntl y

c au se se parate , div isi ble inj ur ie s. 3 { 18} “ A s an e xc ep tion to the ge ne ra l r ule of se ve ra l l ia

bil ity , the suc ce ssi ve 4 tortf ea sor doc tr ine im

pose s jo int an d seve ra l l ia bil ity on the or igi na l t ortf

ea sor f or the 5 fu ll ex te nt o f both in

j ur ie s, tho se c au se d by

both th e or igi na l t ortf

ea sor a nd the 6 successive tort f

e a sor .” P ay ne , 200 6- N MS C- 029, ¶ 13. F or thi s e xc ep tio n to appl y , the 7 fi rs t i nj ur

y i s c au s e d b y t h e o r i g i n a l t o rt f e a s o r a n d t h a t i n

j u ry c au s a l l y l e a d s t o a 8 second, distinct in

j ury (or a distin ct enhancem ent of the first inj ury ), which is caused 9 by a s e c on d t or tfe as or . Id. ¶ 12. “ T he or igi na l t ortf ea sor is re spon sib le f

or both 10 injuries beca

use it is foreseeable a s a m atter of l aw that the origin al injury , such as 11 th at su ffer ed fro m a car acci de nt , m ay le ad to a cau sa ll y -d is ti nc t add it io n a l i n ju r y, 12 suc h a s w he n th e or igi na l i nj ur y r equir es sub se que nt m ed ic al tr eatm en t, ne gli ge ntl y 13 adm inistered at a hospital.” Id

. ¶ 13; se e als o G ulf

I ns. Co

. , 200 6- N MC A -1 50, ¶ 20 14 (d isc uss ing e le m en ts o f suc ce ssi ve tor tf ea sor li ab ili ty that are r equir ed

t o i m pose j oin t 15 and several liability ). In order f or this na rr o w ex ception to com parative negligence 16 to app l y, th e original injury m ust be “ caused by

the negligence of the original 17 tortf ea sor , w hic h is the n f

oll ow ed by ase co nd or

e nhanc ed

inj ur y c au se d by

the 18 second tortfeasor.” P ay ne , 2006- N MS C- 029, ¶ 15. T hus, w he n th e el em en ts o f 19 ne gli ge nc e, c au sa tio n, a nd a dis tin ct or igi na l i nj ur y a re f ound , the or igi na l t ortf

ea sor9

1 m ay be he ld j oin tly an d se ve ra lly lia ble fo r the subs eque nt o r en hanc ed inj ur y a s w el l. 2 Id

. ; G ulf

I ns. Co

. , 20 06 -NMCA- 15 0, ¶ 2 0. 3 { 19} In granting su m m ary j udgm ent, the district court found th at “ [t] he evidence 4 does not suppo rt Plaintiffs ’ t h eo ry that the injuries the police allegedly caused Mr. 5 H e rnand e z ne c e ss i t a t e d t he a l l e ge dl y ne gl i ge nt m e di c a l c a r e a dm i ni st e r e d to Mr. 6 H er nande z in the em er ge nc y ro om . ” W e dis ag re e. V ie w ing the e vid en ce in the li ght 7 m ost f avorable to P laintiffs, as we m ust, we conclude that Plaintiffs p resented 8 ev ide nc e poi nti ng t o ge nui ne iss ue s of m at er ia l f ac t onw he the r D ef

en dants a re j oin tly 9 an d se ve ra lly lia

ble fo r the de ath of

Mr

. H er nande z. S pe ci fi ca lly , the re a re iss ue s of 10 m aterial f

act as to w hether negligence of D efendants caused Mr. He rnandez to suffer 11 personal inj uries and whether it wa s foresee able that those inj uries required m edical 12 at te nt io n. 13 { 20} O ff

ic er Br y an t or igi na lly

a rr es te d M r. H er

nande z, int en din g to take him to j ai l. 14 When efforts to take him out of the hou se in handcuffs failed, the officer s hogt ied Mr. 15 H er nande z an d c ar

rie d or dr ag ge d hi m

out sid e w he re he w as dr ag ge d do w n th e 16 driveway

and the am

bulance was c alled. E xpert testim ony wa s presented by

Plaintiffs 17 that this vio la te d a cc ep te d po lic e pr ac tic es . Mr. He rnandez w as ly ing ho gtied face 18 dow n onthe dr ive w ay w it h abr as ion s onhis thi ghs fr om be ing dr ag ge d onthe 19 pavem ent and he was bleeding from the m outh when the am bulance arrived. A j ury10

1 could v ery

we ll conclude that it was foresee able to the officer s that Mr. He rnandez 2 w oul d r ec ei ve tr eatm en t f or the se inj ur ie s a t the e m er ge nc y r oom . T he e vid en ce a lso 3 supp orts a

f ind ing that M r. Hern an de z re ce ive d ne gli ge nt m ed ic al tr eatm en t a t the 4 em ergency

room , r es u lting in a car diac arr est and death—separate and distinct 5 in juri es fro m

th os e h e rec ei ve d i n t he pro ces s o f be in g a rres te d. 6 { 21} U nde r the c ir cu m stanc es , it was up to th e j ur

y to de ci de , und er

appr opr ia te 7 ins tr uc tio ns, w he the r D ef

en dants w er e j oin tly an d se ve ra lly lia ble fo r the inj ur ie s and 8 de at h s uf

fere d b y Mr. Hern an de z. See P ay ne , 2006 -N MS C- 029, ¶ 42 ( “ [I f] c au sa tio n 9 of a n or igi na l inj ur

y is co nte ste d, the n it w oul d no t be appr opr ia te f or the tr ia l j udge 10 to m ake this determ ination in place of the j ury .” ). W e th eref ore reverse th e sum

m ary 11 j udgm en t gr an te d in favor of D ef en dants on Pla int if

fs ’ w ro ngf

ul death c la im

that i s 12 pr em is edup on joi nt an d s ev eral li ab il it y . 13 3. Li ab ili tyU nd er 42 U . S. C . § 19 83 14 { 22} T he dis tr ic t c ourt a lso c onc lud ed that the allege d ne gli ge nt tre atm en t 1 5 ad m i n i s t er ed at t h e e m er g en cy ro o m “ i s t h e s up er s ed i n g ca u s e” o f M r. He rn an d ez ’s 16 card ia c ar

re st and re la te d inj ur ie s, an d bec au se no r ea sona ble j ur y c oul d f ind that the 17 co nduc t of

the pol ic e of

fi ce rs “ w as the pr oxi m at e ca use ” of his c ar dia c ar

re st and 18 inj ur ie s, Defend an ts w er e en tit le d to sum m ar y j udgm en t onthe 42 U

. S. C. § 19 83 19 claim

. Plaintiffs have not provided us with any authority dem onstrating that summ ary11

1 jud gm en t was im

pr op erl y gra nt edon th is cla im

on th is ba si s. We th eref

or e affi rm . See 2 Sta te v . G odoy , 201 2- N MC A -0 84, ¶ 5, 284 P

. 3d 4 10 ( “ Whe re aparty c ite s no 3 au tho ri ty

to supp ort an ar gum en t, w e m ay as sum e no s uc h auth or ity e xis ts. ”) ; Sta te 4 exre l. O

ffi ce of Stat e E

ng’ r v . L ew is , 200 7- N MC A -0 08, ¶ 74, 141 N

. M. 1, 150 P

. 3d 5 375 (c iti ng ca se s sta tin g that a party m ust sub m it ar gum en t and a

uth or ity in or de r to 6 pr es en t an is sue f

or r ev ie won a

ppe al , that w e w ill not

a ddr es s ac ont en tio n no t 7 supp orte d by

auth or ity , a nd t ha t an issue is ab an done d up on a f ai lur e to p re se nt 8 arg um en t o r au th or it y ). 9 III. THE BATSON

CH ALL ENG E 10 { 23} In B ats on , the U nit ed St at es Su pr em e Co urt he ld tha t r ac ia l di sc ri m inatio n in 11 selecting a j ury

in a crim inal case violates the Equal Protection Clause o f th e U nited 12 St at es Co nst itu tio n. 476 U

. S. at 85. Ra ci al dis cr im inatio n not onl y vio la te s th e ri ght 13 of the defendant, it also u nconsti tutio nally discrim inates against the excludedj uror, 14 an d un de rm in es pu bl ic co nf id en ce in th e fai rn es s of ou r syste m of ju st ic e. Id

. a t 86

- 15 87

. B ats on w as sub se que ntl y e xte nde d to c ivi l c as es in E dm onso n , 500 U

. S. a t 61 6- 16 17, a nd i n J.E.B. v . Al a ba ma ex rel . T.B. , 5 1 1 U

. S

. 1 2 7 , 1 2 9 ( 1 9 9 4 ) , t h e S up r e me 17 Court held that “ gender, like race , is an unconstitu tional prox y for j uror com

petence 18 an d im

pa rti al ity

. ” D isc ri m inatio n inj ur y se le ct ionc au se s in div idu al iz ed a nd 1 9 s t r u c tu r a l h a rm.12

1 Discr im ination in jury s el ection, w hether based on race or on gender, 2 causes harm to the litigant s, the com m unity , and the indiv idu al ju ro rs 3 w ho are w ro ngf

ull y e xc lud ed f ro m part ic ipatio n inthe j udi ci al pr oc es s. 4 T he li tig an ts are harm ed by the ri sk that the pr ej udi ce that m oti va te d th e 5 dis cr im inator

y se le ct ionof

the j ur y w ill inf ec t the e nti re pr oc ee din gs. 6 T he c om

m uni ty is harm ed

by the Sta te ’ s part ic ipatio n inthe 7 pe rp et

ua tio n of inv idi ous gr oup ste re oty pe s and the ine vit ab le los s of 8 co nf

ide nc e in o ur

j udi ci al sy ste m

that st at e- sanc tio ne d di sc ri m inatio n in 9 the c ourtr oom

e nge nde rs . 10 Id . at 1 40 (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. 11 T hus, w he n e ve n asin gle j ur or i s st ric ke n f or r ac ia l r ea sons , r ev er sib le e rr or is 12 com m itted regardless of w hether the j ury that is c hosen is actually fair and unb iased 13 or r et ai ns i ts “ re pr es en ta tiv e” ch ar ac te r, be ca use e qua l pr ote ct ionha s be envio la te d. 14 Se e Sta te v. Gera ld

B. , 2 0 0 6

- N M C A

- 0 2 2 , ¶

3 0 , 1 3 9 N

. M

. 1 1 3 , 1 2 9 P

. 3 d1 4 9 ; St ate 15 v. Gonzales , 19 91 -NMCA- 00 7, ¶ 1 7, 1 11 N.M. 59 0, 8 08 P.2d 40 , modified on ot her 16 grou nds by Sta te v. Dom ingu ez , 199 3- N MC A -0 42, 115 N

. M. 445 , 853 P

. 2d 1 47. 17 { 24} Fo llo w ing E

dm onso n , w e fo r the f

ir st t im e in New Me xic o, hol d th at the 18 B ats on approach applies to ci v i l cases. In this case, the district court allowed 19 D ef en dants to use pe re m

pto ry str ike s a ga ins t H isp an ic s f ro m the j ur y w iththe r es ult 20 that th e jury th at de ci de d th e ca se ha d no H isp an ic s. W e ar e the re fo re squ ar el y 21 co nf ro nte d w ithP la int if

fs ’ a rg um en t tha t the j ur

y se le ct ionvio la te d Bat

so n. W e fi rs t 22 descri b e t h e procedure which a district court m ust follo w when a B ats on ch al le nge13

1 is m ade during jury

selection, set f

orth our stand ard of r eview, then apply that 2 an al y sis to the f

ac ts b ef or e us. 3 A . P ro ce du re f

or D ec id in g a Batson C lai m 4 { 25} In E

dm onso n , the S upr em e Co urt st at ed that the sam e ap pr oa chde sc ri be d in 5 B ats on fo r de te rm ini ng the e xis te nc e of ra ci al dis cr im inatio n in the j ur y se le ct ionof 6 cri m in al cas es al so ap pl ie s in civ il cas es . E dm onso n , 500 U

. S. a t 63 1. O ur pr ec ed en t 7 in a ppl y ing B ats on in cr im ina l c as es is w el l de ve lop ed

. A thr ee -p ar t t es t i s ut ili ze d. 8 { 26} Fi rs t, the opp one nt o f a pe re m pto ry c ha lle nge ha s th e b ur de n to e sta bli sh a 9 pr im a facie c as e “ ind ic at ing that the pe re m pto ry c ha lle nge ha s be ene xe rc ise d ina 10 discrim inatory

way [. ] ” Sta te v . Salas , 201 0- N MS C- 028, ¶ 31, 148 N

. M. 313 , 236 11 P. 3d 32 . T o establish a prim a facie case the c hallengin g party m ust sh ow that “ (1) a 1 2 pe r e m p t o ry c h a l l e n g e w a s u s e dt o r e m o v e am e m b e r o f ap r o t e c t e dg r o up f

r o m the 13 j ur y pane l, an d (2 ) the fa ct s an d oth er re la te d ci rc um stanc es ra ise an inf er en ce that the 14 indiv idual was excluded solely on the basis o f his or her m em bership in a protected 15 group.” Id

. 16 { 27} Se co nd, if

apr im a fa ci e show ing is m ad e, the bur de n th enshi ft s to the 17 pr opon en t of

the c ha lle nge to co m e fo rw ar d w ith a ra ce or ge nde r- ne utr al e xpl an at ion 18 fo r th e c h a l le ng e. Id

. ¶ 32. T his doe s no t r equir e a pe rs ua siv e or e ve n pl au sib le 19 ex pl an at io n. Id

. Whi le a m ere d en ia l o f a d is cri m in at ory m ot iv e is no t s uf

fic ie nt , Sta te14

1 v. Jones , 1 9 9 7

- N M S C

- 0 1 6 , ¶ 3 , 1 2 3 N

. M

. 7 3 , 9 3 4 P

. 2 d 2 6 7 , a s l o n g as a 2 discrim inatory intent is not inherent in the explanation , the reason offer ed is deem ed 3 to be ne ut ral

. Salas , 2010 -N MS C- 028, ¶ 32. If the explana tio n off er ed is not ne utr al , 4 the n af ind ing of pur pose fu l di sc ri m inatio n m ay be m ad e w ith out

a ny f urthe r show ing 5 by the op po ne nt to th e ch al le ng e. Jones , 19 97 -NMSC -0 16 , ¶ 3. 6 { 28} Third, if a neutra l explanation is tendered, the district court then determ ines 7 whe the r th e o pp on en t o f th e st rik e h as pro ve d p ur po se fu l d is cri m in at io n. Salas , 20 10- 8 NMS C-028, ¶ 32. In this regard, the burden of persuasion o n di s cr i m i n at i on never 9 sh ift s fr om

th e o pp on en t o f th e st rik e. Id

. 10 B. Stand ard of R eview 11 { 29} W e re view a district court’ s factual f indin gs on a B ats on challenge under a 12 de fere nt ia l s ta nd ardof r ev ie w. Id

. ¶ 33. In m aking its fac tual finding s, the district 13 co urt ha s ar es pons ibi lity to “ (1 ) ev al ua te the sin ce ri ty of both part ie s, ( 2) r el y

on i ts 14 ow n ob se rv at ion s of the c ha lle nge d j ur or s, a nd ( 3) dr aw on it s e xpe ri en ce in 15 supervisin g voir dire. ” Id (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d)

. 16 { 30} How ever, the B ats on issue ulti m ately is a constitut ional on e w hich we r eview 17 de no vo . Se e Salas , 201 0- N MS C- 028, ¶ 33. Whil e fa ct ua l, th e iss ue is al so o ne of 18 pol ic y to be de ci de d de no vo b ec au se the ult im at e co nst itu tio na l qu es tio n r el at es to 19 conduct. Our reviewis therefore sim ilar to that invo ked in inst ances in which there15

1 ex ist m ixe d qu es tio ns o f la w and f ac t r equir ing thi s C ourt, a s a pol ic y m atte r, to 2 re vie wde nov o is sue s th at inv olv e ab str ac t l eg al doc tr ine an d e va luativ e j udgm en ts 3 but w hic h are a lso inh er en tly f ac tua l, suc h a s issue s of

c onst itu tio na l r ea sona

ble ne ss. 4 Se e Sta te v . A tta wa

y , 199 4- N MS C- 011, ¶

¶ 6- 10, 117 N

. M. 141 , 870 P

. 2d 1 03; 5 Ran da ll H. W arn er, A ll M ix ed U p A bout M ix ed Q uesti ons , 7 J. App. Pr ac . & Pr oc es s 6 10 1, 1 02 (20 05 ). 7 { 31} T he standard

of r ev ie wa na ly sis in Ger al d B. , 200 6- N MCA-022, ¶ 36, is 8 incom plete insofa r as i t states that “ we reviewthe action of the trial court under a 9 de fere nt ia l s ta nd ard [,]” if by tha t s ta te m en t, G er al d B. m eans tha t the ult im at e 10 questio n of constitu tional neut rality is not reviewed de novo. While B ats on indicates 11 that a district court’ s finding s are to be given “ great defe rence, ” B ats on , 476 U. S. at 12 98 n

. 21, thi s do es not

e lim inate de nov o r ev ie wof the c onst itu tio na l pr opr ie ty of the 13 pe re m pto ry c ha lle nge s. T he c onc lus iona s to the c onstit utiona l pr opr ie ty of the 14 pe rem pt ory ch al le ng es is st il l re vi ewedde no vo . See Jones , 1997 -N MS C- 016, ¶ 11 15 (s ta tin g th at

“ anappe llate c ourt ne ed

not de fe r to a tr ia l cour t onw he the r a re as on i s 16 co nst itu tio na lly

a de qua te ”) ; Bailey , 2008-NMC A- 084, ¶ 15 (sam e). 17 C . A na lys is 18 { 32} Plaintiffs argue that equal protection wa s violated when the district court erred 19 in a llo w ing D ef

en dants to use pe re m

pto ry str ike s aga ins t thr ee H isp an ic pr ospe ct ive16

1 j urors and a p rospective alternate juror. De fendants respond by arguing that Plaintiffs 2 c a n n o te s t a b l i s h ap r i maf a c i e c a s e o f

d i s c r i mi n a t i o n a n dd i dn o to v e r c o me 3 D ef en dants ’ r ac ia lly -n eu tr al r ea sons f or str iki ng the pr ospe ct ive j ur or s. 4 { 33} W e first note that H ispanics are a cognizable group under aB ats on ch al le nge . 5 Sta te v . G uzm an , 1 9 9 4

- N M C A

- 1 4 9 , ¶ 1 9 , 1 1 9 N. M

. 1 9 0 , 8 8 9 P

. 2 d 2 2 5

. S e c o n d l y, 6 be ca use the dis tr ic t cour

t re qui re d De fe ndants to of fe r a ra ce -n eu tr al e xpl an at ionf or 7 the strikes at issue, w e conclude that the dis t ri ct co u rt found that Plaintiffs m ade a 8 pr im a faci e cas e o f di sc riminat io n a ga in st His pa ni cs . See B ailey , 200 8- N MC A -0 84, 9 ¶ 17 (observing th at because the dis t rict cou rt asked if the state had a race -neutral 10 reason for its challenges, “ [t] he district court t h er ef ore im plicitlyfound that 11 [d ] ef en dant h ad

m ad e a pr im a fa ci e show ing that the S ta te ’ s c ha lle nge s w er e ra ci al ly 12 m ot iv at ed ”). 13 { 34} D ef

en dants use d thre e of the ir f ive pe re m pto ry c ha lle nge s a ga ins t pr ospe ct ive 14 j ur or s w ithH isp an ic sur na m es , w ithtw o of

tho se f ive c ha lle nges ex ercis ed

a ga ins t 15 prospective jurors w ith Anglo su rnam es. D efendants also used their o ne perem ptory 16 str ike a ga ins t a

pr ospe ct ive j ur or

w ithaH isp an ic sur

na m e. P la int if

fs obj ec te d on 17 B ats on gr ound s to D ef en dants ’ pe re m

pto ry c ha ll en ge s a ga ins t those w ithH isp an ic 18 surnam es. T he court required D efendants to e xplain th e re asons for their perem ptory 19 challenges of j urors with H ispanic surnam es. W hen the district court polled the j ury17

1 at the c onc lus ionof

tr ia l, the re w er e no H isp an ics onthe j ur y . T he re is not

a ny 2 dispu te over w heth er P laintiffs established a prim a fa cie ca se of discrim inatory 3 co nduc t i n th e ex er ci se of pe re m pto ry c ha lle nge s. 4 { 35} W e the re fo re de te rmi n e wh e th e r D ef en dants sa tis fi ed

the ir bur de n of pr ovi din g 5 a rac ia ll y -n eu tra l ex pl an at io n fo r eac h p erem pt ory st rik e. Se e Ger al d B. , 200 6- 6 N MC A -0 22, ¶

32 (c onc lud ing that be ca use the state pr oc ee de d pa st the fi rs t ste p of 7 the B ats on an al y sis w ith out quest ion ing w he the r the re w as apr im a fa ci e show ing , 8 an d th e dis tr ic t c ourt m ad e fi ndi ngs on dis cr im inatio n, it w as pr ope r to d et er m ine on 9 ap pe al w he the r the state sa tis fi ed it s burd ento ar

tic ulate a ra ci al ly

ne utr al e xpl an at ion 10 fo r its pe re m

pto ry c ha lle nge ); se e als o H

ernand ez v. Ne w Yo rk , 500 U

. S. 352 , 359 11 (1991) (plur

. o p n . of Ke nnedy ) (“ Once a prosecutor has offer ed a ra ce-neutra l 12 ex plana tio n f

or the pe re m

pto ry c ha lle nge s and the tr ia l c ourt ha s ru le d on the ult im at e 13 que sti on o f int en tio na l di sc ri m inatio n, the pr el im inary iss ue of w he the r the de fe ndant 14 ha d m ad e a pr im a fa ci e show ing be co m es m oot . ”)

. W e ind ep en de ntl y r ev ie wde fe nse 15 co un se l’s ex pl an at io ns to de te rm in e if th ey were c o n s t it ut io na ll y

ad eq ua te . See 16 Ger al d B. , 200 6- N MC A -0 22, ¶ 28 ( co nc lud ing that be ca

use ac onst itu tio na l qu es tio n 17 is p re se nte d, w e ap ply de nov o r ev ie wto the r ace-ne ut ra l e xpl an at ion s gi ve n f or 18 perem ptory strikes). 19 1. Ju ro r N o. 2618

1 { 36} O n he r j ur or

que sti onna ir e, Jur or

N o. 26 ide nti fi ed he rs el f as a H isp an ic w ho 2 spe ak s S panis h and E ngl ish

. D ef en dants used th ei r fi rs t pe re m pto ry c ha lle nge to 3 str ike he r fr om

the j ur y . P la int if

fs obj ec te d, statin g th at

D ef en dants a ske d he r no 4 que sti ons in v oir dir e and as se rt ing that the re w as no bas is fo r the str ike

. Re spon din g 5 to the dist rict court’ s request for a racia lly -neutral explanation, cou n s el s t at ed that 6 “ she is a nursing hom e car egive r. ” Plaintiffs’ counsel challenged th e re ason as 7 in su ffi ci en t, b ut th e d is tri ctco ur t ru le d t ha t t he st rik e h ada “ reas on ab le ba si s.” 8 Subsequentl y , wh en De fendants accepted another j uror to sit on th e j ury , P laintiffs 9 argued that she was a lso a care giver, but de fe n se counsel failed to strike her. See 10 G uzm an , 1994-NMC A- 149, ¶ 20 (stating that wh en t he sam e fa ctors that wer e 11 identified to st rike H ispanics we re no t applied to strike Anglos, the explanation was 12 not r ac e- ne ut ral ). T he j ur or

w ho w as a cc ep te d w orke d a s an x- ray te ch nic ian a t the 13 tim e of the trial. An x-ray technician m anipulates m edical im agery equipm ent in order 1 4 t o t a k e p i c tu r e s o f

t h e i n t e r n a l s t r

u c tu r e s o f

t h e b o d y. I nc o n t r a s t , an u r s i n g h o me 15 care giv er

ty pic al ly pr ovi de s a ssi stanc e to p at ie nts in as pe ct s of d ai ly li vin g. 16 Mor eo ve r, a n x- ray

tec hn ic ia n m ay

se e he r pa tie nts onl y

onc e to c ap tur e anim ag e 1 7 wh i l e a n u rs i n g h o m e c ar eg i v erm ay h av e d ai l y i n t er ac t i o n s w i t h h erp at i en t s . We 18 th eref or e ag ree wi th th e d is tri ctco ur t t ha t t he re i s a d is ti nc ti on be twee n t he two 19 oc cupa ti on s an d a ffi rm th atDefen da nt s’ exp la na ti on was s uf fic ie nt ly race-n eu tra l.19

1 { 37} Plaintiffs also argue for the first tim e on ap p eal that another j uror who w as 2 c h o s e n h a de x p e r i e n c e a s ac a r e g i v e r . T h i s j u r o r ’s qu e s t i o n n a i r e s t a t e s t h a ta tt h e t i me 3 of tr ia l sh e w orke d inr et ai l a t G oodw ill a nd h er pa st j obs inc lud ed

“ w orkin g w ith 4 pe opl e w ithdis ab ili tie s[

. ] ” W e ag re e w ithD ef en dants that be ca

use P la int if

fs did not 5 ar gue the sim ilari ty

of the j obs be tw ee n th e j ur or w ho w as str ic ke n and the j ur or w ho 6 sa t, Pl ai nt iff

s ca nn ot no w m ak e t h a t a r g u m en t fo r th e fi rs t t im e o n app eal . “ To 7 preserve an issu e for r eview on appea l , i tm ust appear that appellant fairly invok ed 8 a ru li ng of t he tri al co ur t o n t he same gro un ds arg ue d i n t he ap pe ll at e co ur t.” 9 W oolwine v. F

urr’s, Inc. , 198 7- N MC A -1 33, ¶ 20, 106 N

. M. 492 , 745 P

. 2d 7 17. 10 2. Ju ro r N o. 27 11 { 38} De fendants used th eir third perem ptory strike to rem ove Juror

N o. 2 7, who self12 ide nti fi ed

him se lf as “ Me xic an ” on h is j ur or que sti onna ir e. P la int if

fs obj ec te d to the 13 stri ke an d w he n th e dis tr ic t c ourt a ske d f or a n e xpl an at ion , de fe nse c ouns el state d, 14 “ th ere a re o th er p eo pl e o n t hi s ju ry who are fu rth er d own th e li n e t h a t I’d l ik e.” 15 D ef en se c ouns el ha d not aske d any ind ivi dua l ques tio ns of thi s j ur or , a nd P la int if fs ’ 16 co unse l a sse rt ed

thi s w as not

asuf fi ci en t re as on. T he dis tr ic t c ourt ne ve rthe le ss 17 al low ed

the str ike on the ba sis of the e xpl an at iongiv enby de fe nse co un se l. W e do 18 not de fe r to the dis tr ic t co urt’ s de te rm inatio n inr eg ar d to D ef en dants ’ e xpl an at ionof20

1 t h e c h al l en g e; i n s t ea d u n d erd e n o v o re v i ew w e h o l d t h at t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s 2 de te rm in at io n was erro ne ou s. 3 { 39} D ef

en dants r ep eat onappe al that the ir und er ly ing r atio na le f

or the c ha lle nge 4 to Juror No. 27 “ wa s that th ey h ad t o s ac rifice [Juror N o. 27] so they could reach 5 an oth er

j ur or w ho the y be lie ve d wou ld be favor ab le tow ar d[ ] the m . ” T his und er ly ing 6 r a t i o n a l e i s a c c e p t ab l e i n t h e u s u a l e x e r c i s e o f p e r e mp t o ry c h a l l e n g e s w h e r e ap r i ma 7 fa ci e ca se of

dis cr im inator

y c ondu ct ha s no t be ene sta

bli she d. Abse nt a

pr im a fa ci e 8 ca se of

dis cr im inator

y c ondu ct , str iki ng j ur or s te ndi ng t o or pe rc ei ve d to be 9 sym pa the tic w ith the oppo sin g party ’ s ca se , in hope s of get tin g a j ur or w ho i s no t so 10 pr ed isp ose d, ha s a lw ay s be enc onsi de re d fa ir ga m e an d a virtua lly unc ha lle nge ab le 11 pr er oga tiv e of

c ouns el

. D ef

en dants ’ und er ly ing r at ion al e is n ot a cc ep ta ble w he n a 12 party ha s e sta bli she d apr im a fa ci e ca se of dis cr im inator y c ondu ct in the e xe rc ise of 13 pe re m pto ry c ha lle nge s. I f a dis cr im inator y int en t i s in he ren t in the r ea son fo r the 14 ch al le ng e, th e rea so n i s n ot race -n eu tra l. Se e Salas , 20 10 -NMSC -0 28 , ¶ 32

. 15 { 40} B ats on w ar

ne d th at th e pa rty m ak ing the str ike doe s no t r eb ut a pr im a fa ci e 16 ca se of

dis cr im in at ion “ m er el y

by de ny ing that he ha d adis cr im inator y m oti ve or 17 affir m ing hi s good faith in m aking in divid ual selection s.” B ats on , 476 U

. S. a t 98 18 (a lte ratio ns, int er

na l qu otatio n m ar

ks, a nd c itatio n om itt ed ). I nst ea d, the party m ak ing 19 the str ike “ m

ust giv e a cl ear an d r ea sona bl yspe ci fi c ex plana tio n of his le git im at e21

1 reasons for exercising the challenges.” Id

. n. 20 (in te rn al quot at ion m ar ks and c itatio n 2 om itted). “ This warning wa s m eant t o refute the notio n that a p rosecutor could satisfy 3 his bur de n of

pr oduc tio n by m er el y

de ny ing that he ha d adis cr im inator y m oti ve or 4 by m erely aff irm ing hi s good faith.” Purkett v. Ele m , 514 U. S. 765, 769 (199 5) (per 5 curi am); see M

iller-El v . D retke , 545 U .S. 23 1, 23 9 ( 2005 ) (r ei te ratin g th at the 6 str iki ng p ar

ty ‘ m ust giv e a cl ear an d r ea sona

bly spe ci fi c ex plana tio n of

his le git im at e 7 re as ons fo r ex er ci sin g th e ch al le nge ’ ( quot ing B ats on , 545 U

. S. n. 20) ); State v. 8 G oode , 198 8- N MC A -0 44, ¶ 9, 107 N

. M. 29 8, 75 6 P. 2d 5 78 ( statin g th at the party 9 excusing j urors “ m

ust articulate a neutral explanation related to th e particular case, 10 giv ing a cl ear, co nc ise , re as ona bly spe ci fi c le git im at e exp lana tio n for ex cu sin g th ose 11 juro rs ”). 12 { 41} T he r ea son m

ust be suf fic ie ntl y spe ci fi c to a llo wthe party c ha lle ngi ng the 13 str ike to ex er ci se it s rig ht “ to re fu te the state d re as on o r oth er w ise pr ove pur

pose fu l 14 discrim ination .” Jones , 199 7- N MS C- 016, ¶ 3. It m ust al so be s uf

fi ci en tly spe ci fi c to 15 enable the district court to determ ine whether the oppo nent of t he strike has proved 16 pu rp os efu l di sc riminat io n an d, th eref or e, to sa feg ua rdequa l p ro te ct io n. Se e G oode , 17 1988 -N MCA -044, ¶ 9 ( “ [T ] he trial court m ay not m erely

acce pt the state’ s proffer ed 18 expl an at io ns , but

ha s aduty

to ex am ine the m

a nd d ec ide w he the r the y a re ge nui ne 1 9 a n dr e a s o n ab l e . ” )

. As mo r e f u l l y e x p l a i n e db y State v. G iles , 754 S

. E

. 2d 2 61, 26522

1 (S

. C. 201 4) , in or de r fo r the e xpl an at ionto be le ga lly suf fi ci en t a t the se co nd s te p of 2 the B ats on an al y sis , the e xpl an at ion 3 m

ust be c le ar a nd r eas on ab ly spe ci fi c suc h th at the opp one nt o f the 4 ch al le nge ha s a fu ll an d f ai r oppo rt uni ty to de m onstrate pr et ex t i n th e 5 re as on g ive n an d the tr ia l co urt to fu lf ill its duty to as se ss the pla usi bil ity 6 of the re as on in lig ht of al l the ev ide nc e w ith a be ar ing on it. Re as ona ble 7 spe ci fi ci ty

is ne ce ssary

be ca use c ompari son to o the r m em be rs of the 8 venire for purposes of a disparate treatm ent analy sis, which is of ten used 9 a t t he t hi r d st e p of the B ats on pr oc es s to de te rm ine if pur pose fu l 10 dis cr im inatio n ha s oc curred, is i m poss ibl e if

the pr opon en t of

the 11 ch al le nge provi de s on ly ava gue or

ve ry ge ne ra l e xpl an at ion

. T he 12 ex plana tio n gi ve n m ay in fa ct be im pla usi ble or f an ta sti c, a s no te d in 13 P urk

et t , but it m ay not be so g en er al or

va gue that it de pr ive s th e 14 oppo ne nt o f the c ha lle nge of the abil ity to m ee t the bur de n to show , or 15 the tr ia l c ourt of the abil ity

to de te rm ine whethe r, the r ea son giv enis 16 pr et ex tua l. T he pr opon en t of the ch al le nge m ust pr ovi de a n ob

j ec tiv el y 1 7 d i s c e rn i b l e b a s i s f o r t h e c h a l l e n g e t h a tp e rm i t s t h e o p p o n e n to f the 18 ch al le nge a nd the tr ia l c ourt t o e va luate it

. 19 Id

. 20 Thus, num erous cases have concluded there wa s error at the second step of the B ats on 21 analy sis where the reasons proffer ed for striking a j uror we re not sufficiently “ clear 22 an d spe ci fi c” in pr ovi din g af ac tua l ba sis f

or ac ourt t o r ev ie wf

or le git im acy. See 23 M oe lle r v . B lan c , 276 S

. W

. 3d 65 6, 66 2-63; 666 ( T ex . Ct

. App. 200 8) ( co lle ct ing 24 cases and con cluding that “ obscure and vague” explanation s for strik ing a j uror are 25 in su ffi ci en t).23

1 { 42} What obvi ouslyoverly tips the propriety

balance of D efendants’ perem ptory 2 ch al le nge of

Jur or N o. 27 t ow ar d adis cr im inator y pa tte rnis D ef

en da nt s’ havin g 3 exercised their per em

ptory challenges against Hispanic-surnam ed j urors in a m anner 4 t h a t ap p e a r s t o h a v e a s s u r e d t h a t n o H i s p a n i c - s u rn a med p e r s o n wo u l ds i to n t h e ju ry, 5 and, as w ell, that the j ury would not consist of a sufficie nt num ber of H ispanic jurors 6 who m ight b e prone to favor Pla intiffs

. De fe ndants’ ac tions had to have raised an 7 ey ebrow when, after the gam e was play ed, the field was laid bare of H ispanic jurors 8 an d th e onl y ba sis f

or c ha lle ngi ng Jur or

N o. 27 w as that D ef

en dants w an te d to ha ve 9 a juro r th atth ey

be li ev edwou ldbe fav or ab le to wardth em . 10 { 43} While Def

endants’ e xplanatio n of this challenge wa s race -neutral on its face, 11 m or e was req ui red

. See G iles , 754 S

. E

. 2d a t 263, 265- 66. D ef en dants did not

e xa m ine 12 the stricken j urors on vo ir dire in an ef fort to uncover inform ation that would lead 13 De fendants to be concerned abo ut j uror p redisposit ion. Ther e m ay have been proper, 14 race -neutral re asons why De fendants w anted another j uror “ further down the line”, 15 but th e re cord before us fa ils to di sclose what those reasons m ight h ave been. W e ar e 16 the re fo re le ft

w ith ou t c onst itu tio na lly

pe rm iss ibl e, r ac e- ne utr al r ea sons f or str iki ng 1 7 J u ro r N o . 2 7 . “ If

. . . g en er al as s er t i o n s we re ac ce p t ed as re b u t t i n g a d ef e n d a n t ’s 18 pr i m a fa ci e case , the E qual Protection Clause would be but a vain and ill usory 19 requirem ent.” B ats on , 476 U. S. at 98 (internal quotatio n m arks and citation om itted).24

1 U nde r the tot al ity of

c ir cu m stanc es , one c anr ea sona bly r ea d D ef en dants ’ e xpl an at ion 2 to r ea ll y s a y , “ w e s t r

u c k [ J u r o r N o . 2 7 ] b e c au s e , b e i n g H i s p a n i c , h e l i k e l y w oul d 3 favor P la int if fs , a nd w e pr efer red fi ndi ng a non -H isp an ic j ur or

ins te ad w ho w oul d 4 lik el y f av or D ef en dants . ” W e the re fo re hol d th at the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

in al low ing 5 D ef en dants to str ike Jur or

N o. 27. 6 3. Ju ro r N o. 36 7 { 44} D ef

en dants ha d pre vio usl y atte m pte d to str ike Jur or

N o. 36 f or c au se be ca

use 8 t h e y w e r e w o rr i e dh e r

n o n - t r e a t e d a s t h m aw o u l d c au s e d e l a y i f

s h e h a da n a s t h ma 9 attack during the trial. T he district court denied the strike for ca use. De fense counsel 10 then used a perem

ptory challenge, and Plaintiffs’ counsel objec ted, alerting the court 11 that this w oul d be the thi rd pot en tia l H isp an ic j ur or struck by

D ef en dants . 12 De fendants gav e t h eir explanation and the court allowed the strike, r easoning that 13 “ it’ s an a

ppr opr ia te use of

ape re m pto ry to ch al le nge aj ur or

that y ou a tte m

pte d to 1 4 ch al l en g e f

o r c au s e a n dwe re u n ab l e t o g et i td o n e[ .]” 15 { 45} Pl ai nti ff

s arg ue that be ca

use D ef en dants w er e una

ble to str ike Jur or

N o. 36 f or 16 cause does not giv e rise to the appropriate use of a per em ptory strike. W e disagree. 17 Race -neutral re asons for perem ptory strikes do no t need to rise to the sam e level 18 ne ed edto ju s t i f

y a ch al le ng e fo r cau se . Sta te v . San dov al , 198 7- N MC A -0 41, ¶ 15, 19 105 N.M. 696, 736 P.2d 501. He re, De fendants p ro ffer ed a plausible race- neutral25

1 ex p l an at i o n ; p o t en t i al d el ay o f t ri al fr o m a p o t en t i al ju ro r’s m ed i ca l c o n d i t i o n . We 2 therefore aff

irm the district court’ s determ ination th at a su fficient r ace- neutral 3 ex pl an at io n was gi ve n fo r st rik in g J ur orNo. 3 6. 4 4. Ju ro r N o. 40 5 { 46} A ft er

the j ur y w as pic ke d, Jur or

N os. 40 and 4 1 w er e nex t i n li ne f or se le ct ion 6 as al te rn a t e j u r o r s a n db o t h o f t h e m w e r e H i s p a n i c . Wh e n D e f e n d a n t s s t r

u c kJur or 7 N o. 40, P la int if

fs obj ec te d, a rg uin g th is w as the f ourth H isp an ic str ic ke n, ind ic at ing 8 a pattern, and when asked by the district court for an explan at i o n fo r the strike, 9 co unse l r es pond ed

that he w as str ic ke n be ca use he w as une m

plo y ed

. 10 { 47} D ef

en dants ur ge us t o c on cl ud e tha t be ca use no a lte rn at e j ur or

w as c al le d to 1 1 d el i b er at e o n t h e c as e, t h at t h e h ar m l es s e r r o rs t an d ar di s ap p ro p ri at e t o ap p l y. W e 12 rej ect this sugg estion. If a prospective juror is stricken becau s e o f ra ce, equal 13 pr ote ct ionis vio la te d, an d the ve rd ic t m ust be r ev er se d, notw ith standi ng tha t j ur or did 14 not delib erate on the case. Likew ise, if a prospective alternate ju ro r is stricken 15 be ca use of ra ce , equa lity

is vio la te d, w he the r or

not that j ur or a ct ua lly de lib er at es on 16 the c as e. I n bo th c ir cu m stan ces , t he harm to our soc ie ty a nd s y ste m

of j ust ic e is 17 ide ntical , a nd it doe s no t m atte r w he the r the j ur y that a ct ua lly de ci de d th e ca se is 18 ‘ re pr es en ta tiv e’ or unbi as ed

. O ur Co nst itu tio n do es not

a llo wf or suc h di sc ri m inatio n 19 in the se le ct ionof

our j ur ie s inc ivi l or

c ri m ina l c as es .26

1 { 48} Ne vertheless, w e con clude that Def endants’ e xplanatio n that Juror No. 40 was 2 stricken because he w as unem ploy ed is sufficiently

rac e-neutral in the circum stances 3 of this case. Anticipating thi s conclusio n, Pla intiffs fo r the fir st tim e on appeal 4 sugg es t this w as a pr et ex t bec au se one of the j ur or s w ho w as a ct

ua lly se at ed w as a lso 5 un em pl oyed. Be cau se th is was no t b ro ug ht to th e at te nt io n o f th e d is tri ctco ur t, we 6 do no t co ns id er i t fu rth er. W ool wi ne , 19 87 -NMCA- 13 3, ¶ 2 0. 7 { 49} When viewed in the total selection process, D efendants’ challenges indicate a 8 pa tte rnof co nduc t an d a m oti ve to ke ep H isp an ic s of f of the j ur y . Cum ulativ el y , the 9 ch allen ge s te et er

on the e dge of

im pr opr ie ty . T he c ha lle nge s c ar ri ed asus pic iou s 10 m oti va tio n of

r iddin g the j ur

y of H isp an ic s, le av ing adis tin ct ove rv ie wof

dis tr ust 11 cr eatin g a prim a fa ci e ca se . Whe n lo oki ng a t the tot al ity of the pr oc ee din gs, it

is 12 re as ona

ble to co nc lud e that D ef

en dants ’ e xpl an at ionof

the c ha lle nge to Jur or

N o. 27 13 w as not

r ac e- ne utr al a nd w as pr et ex tua l. 14 { 50} D ef

en dants ne ve rthe le ss arg ue that the ir f ive pe re m

pto ry str ike s sh oul d no t 15 giv e ri se to an inf

er en ce of dis cr im inator

y int en t be ca

use the y a lso str uc k A ngl o16 sur na m ed j ur or s, ind ic at ing e xc lus ion ba se d on non- ra ci al fa ct or s, an d al so b ec au se 17 Pl ai nti ff

s exe rc ise d thei r fi ve pe re m pto ry str ike s aga ins t j ur or s w ithA ngl o surn am es , 18 ind ic at ing apa tte rnof dis cr im inatio n a ga ins t j ur or s w ithA ngl o surn am es . T he se 19 ar gum en ts d o no t c hange thi ngs. D ef en dants ’ a ct ion s ar e at iss ue he re , not P la int if fs ’27

1 ac tio ns. D ef

en dants ’ a ct ion s cr eate str ong inf er en ce s of

dis cr im inator

y int en t. Whil e 2 Pl ai nti ff

s’ a ct ion s m ay

a s w el l, n ei th er De fe ndants nor the dis tr ic t c ourt r ai se d a 3 B ats on iss ue in that r eg ar d. 4 { 51} T he j ur

y se le ct ion in thi s c as e vio la te d B ats on . T he r em edy f or suc h avio la tio n 5 in a cri m in al cas e is a n ew tr ia l. G uzm an , 1994 -N MC A -1 49, ¶ 20. T he sam e re m edy 6 ap pl ie s i n a civ il cas e. See , e. g. , W oods on v. P ort er B row n Li m es ton e Co

. , 9 1 6 S. W. 7 2d 896, 907 (T en n. 199 6) ; Moeller , 276 S

. W

. 3d at 66 6; D av is v

. F isk E le c. Co

. , 268 8 S. W

. 3d 5 08, 526 ( Tex . 2 00 8) . T he ve rd ic t of the j ur y is re ve rs ed

a nd the c as e is 9 rem an de d t o t he di st ric t co ur t fo r a n ew tr ia l. 10 IV. REM AIN ING A RGU MEN TS 11 { 52} Plaintiffs contend that the dis trict cou rt erred i n directing the verdict of the j ury 12 in D ef en dants ’ f av or on the ba tte ry

c la im ag ai nst

the ind ivi dua l po lic e of

fi ce rs . We 13 ag re e. L ooki ng a t the f ac ts r ec ite d he re in a lon e, a nd the y w er e not the onl y f ac ts 14 of fere d i n s up po rt o f t h e c l a im , we con cl ud e th atth e d is tri ctco ur t erred

. See 15 Se lm ec

zk i v

. N. M

. D ep ’t of Co rr. , 2006 -N MC A -0 24, ¶ 29, 139 N

. M. 122 , 129 P

. 3d 16 158 (“ It

is bla ck -l ette r lawthat c au sin g an of fe nsi ve touch in g, e ve n in dir ec tly to 17 an oth er ’ s c lothin g and n ot r es ult ing in injur y , is the tor t of ba tte ry . ”) ; R es ta te m en t 18 (S ec ond) of

T orts § 18 ( 1965 ) (s ta tin g that an ac tor is l ia ble f or ba tte ry if “ (a ) he a ct s 19 intendi ng to cause a harm ful or offensive contact w i t h t he person of the other or a28

1 thi rd pe rs on, or

a n im m ine nt a ppr eh en sio n of su ch a co nta ct , a nd ( b) a n of fe nsi ve 2 co nta ct w ith the pe rs on of the oth er dir ec tly or ind ir ec tly

r es ult s” ); se e als o Stric kland 3 v. R oose ve lt Cn ty
. R ural E le c. Co op. , 198 0- N MC A -0 12, ¶ 14, 94 N. M. 459, 612 P. 2d 4 689 (“ [D ] irected verdicts are not favored and shou ld be granted only when the j ury 5 could no t reasonably

and legally

rea ch any

other conclusion .” ). 6 { 53} De fendants argue for the f irst tim e on appeal that an intentio nal to rt such as 7 ba tte ry doe s not sur

viv e the de ath of a de ce de nt w he n the de ath is unr el ated to the 8 to rt. We do no t ad dr es s t hi s ar gu m en t, as itwas n ot pre se nt edto th e d is tri ctco ur t. See 9 W ool wi ne , 198 7- N MC A -1 33, ¶ 20. 10 { 54} W e do n ot a ddr es s th e re m ai nin g is su es r ai se d by P la int if fs be ca use tho se 11 issues m ay

not reoccur at t h e re-tr ial. I n additio n, those issues id entified as issues 12 N os. 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, an d 11 in Pl ai nti ff s’ br ie f in chi ef w er e not br ie fe d, an d we do n ot 13 ad dr es s t he m . Se e In re A dopt ion of D oe , 198 4- N MS C- 024, ¶ 2, 100 N

. M. 764, 676 14 P. 2d 1 329 (s ta tin g th at iss ue s that ar e unsu ppor te d by a ny c ite d auth or ity

w ill not be 15 addressed on a

ppeal and that the appellate court will not do thi s resear ch for counsel). 16 V. CON CLU SION 17 { 55} T he sum

m ar y j udgm en t and j ur

y ve rd ic t i n f

av or of D ef en dants a re r ev er se d, 18 an d th e ca

use is re m an de d to the dis tr ic t co ur t fo r a ne w tr ia l in ac co rd an ce w iththi s 19 Opi ni on .29

1 { 56} IT IS S O ORDERE D. 2

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 3 M IC HA EL E. V IG IL , C hi ef Ju dg e 4 WE CO NCUR:

5

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ 6 JO N A TH A N B. S U TI N , Ju dg e

7

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ 8 R OD ERIC K T . KE N N ED Y , Ju dg e