Opinion ID: 1268268
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Tainted Jury Venire

Text: During the trial, the court conducted a portion of voir dire at which time the following exchange took place: Court: Any of you acquainted with the defendant in this case? Mr. Newton: Yes, I am your honor. Court: You know Mr. Coates? Mr. Newton: Yes, I do. Court: And the nature of that acquaintance, sir? Mr. Newton: I am the warden at the correctional center.    Court:    Mr. Newton, I will excuse you in this matter. During jury selection in chambers, defense counsel moved for a mistrial on the grounds that Mr. Newton's response had left the prospective jurors with the impression that Coates had been incarcerated previously. Therefore, Coates' attorney argued that the impartiality of the jury had been adversely affected and that a presumption of prejudice arose. The trial judge denied the motion. The record reveals that the defense attorney made no effort to pursue the matter further or to show that his client was, in fact, prejudiced. In State v. Segotta, 100 N.M. 18, 23, 665 P.2d 280, 285 (Ct.App. 1983), the court of appeals stated that [u]nless the record affirmatively shows that defendant was not tried by a fair and impartial jury, there is no error. In the instant case, there is no evidence in the record that the conversation between the trial judge and Mr. Newton during voir dire prevented the jurors from making a fair-minded decision. Mere speculation on the part of defendant that his right to an impartial jury was violated will not suffice to show that the trial court abused its discretion in not granting a mistrial.