Opinion ID: 891664
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motion to Strike the Jury Pool

Text: {22} On appeal, Defendant argues that he was denied his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to have a petit jury selected from a fair cross-section of the community. The State contends that Defendant failed to preserve the constitutional issue for appeal because his objection in district court was legally insufficient. We agree with the State. {23} During the jury selection process, Defendant moved to strike the entire jury panel because he claimed that since Defendant was black, under Batson [v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986) ], he was entitled to a jury panel that at least has some blacks. Defendant moved for a mistrial, requested that the entire jury panel be struck, and that the State be given six months to ensure that a proper jury was empaneled. In the alternative, Defendant sought an interlocutory appeal so that the court could determine whether a panel without any blacks should hear [the] case. The court denied Defendant's motions. After trial, during the sentencing proceeding, Defendant orally moved for a new trial because there were no blacks or no African Americans on the jury[] and asked the court to take judicial notice of a 2000 federal census study which revealed that about ten percent of Curry County's population was black. The court denied the motion and proceeded with the sentencing. {24} To preserve a question for review it must appear that a ruling or decision by the district court was fairly invoked[.] Rule 12-216(A) NMRA. Because the purpose of an objection is to invoke a ruling of the court upon a question or issue, an objection must be made with sufficient specificity to alert the mind of the trial court to the claimed error, State v. Lopez, 84 N.M. 805, 809, 508 P.2d 1292, 1296 (1973), and it must be made timely. State v. Gonzales, 112 N.M. 544, 550, 817 P.2d 1186, 1192 (1991) (review by an appellate court must be predicated upon a timely objection by a defendant). {25} Defendant's objections regarding the jury pool were insufficient in terms of specificity and timeliness. Defendant's initial objection during the jury selection process, on the basis that he was entitled to a jury panel that would have at least some blacks, did not amount to the constitutional challenge that he now asserts on appeal. See United States v. Grose, 525 F.2d 1115, 1119 (7th Cir.1975) (The mere observation that a particular group is underrepresented on a particular panel does not support a constitutional challenge.). On the other hand, while Defendant's post-trial objection contained slightly more specificity regarding a fair cross-section argument, it was untimely because at that juncture, the district court could not have remedied the situation. See State v. Montoya, 80 N.M. 64, 67, 451 P.2d 557, 560 (1968) (The burden is on the appellant to make his objection known to the court at the earliest time in order to afford the court the opportunity to rule on the matter before allowing the argument to continue.). Thus, Defendant failed to preserve his claim that he was denied his right to a fair and impartial jury under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.