Opinion ID: 1438798
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: How Our Court of Appeals Has Addressed This Issue

Text: Our court of appeals has come close to agreeing with Appellant's position. In State v. Crespin, 94 N.M. 486, 488, 612 P.2d 716, 718 (Ct.App. 1980), decided before Batson, the court in dictum linked systematic acts by the prosecutor in striking members of a minority racial group from the petit jury with a violation of Article II, Section 14 of our constitution. In Crespin, the sole Black member of the venire was stricken by the prosecutor, but the court felt unable from that fact alone to conclude that the State systematically had excluded Blacks from the jury. In State v. Sandoval, 105 N.M. 696, 736 P.2d 501 (Ct.App. 1987), the court applied Batson to a factual situation in which the defendant was Hispanic and the prosecutor peremptorily struck the only two Hispanics who could have sat on the jury. Noting that  Crespin has been modified by Batson,  id. at 699, 736 P.2d at 504, the court decided the issue strictly on an equal protection basis. Yet, the dictum in Crespin, to the effect that a challenge to racially biased peremptory strikes based on the state constitution might succeed if brought in a proper case, was not laid to rest. In State v. Hall, 107 N.M. 17, 751 P.2d 701 (Ct.App.), cert denied, 107 N.M. 16, 751 P.2d 700 (1988), the court of appeals was asked to decide the issue that is now before us. In Hall, the defendant was Black and the peremptorily stricken potential jurors were Hispanic. Defendant challenged the strikes on sixth amendment grounds, relying on Fields v. People, 732 P.2d 1145 (Colo. 1987). The court held that Fields was inapplicable because defendant did not show that the potential jurors with Hispanic surnames were excused solely because of their membership in that group as required by Fields.  Hall, 107 N.M. at 22, 751 P.2d at 705 (emphasis in original). In another recent case raising the issue of challenged peremptory strikes, State v. Goode, 107 N.M. 298, 756 P.2d 578 (1988), the court of appeals was not called upon to decide the issue raised in Hall, but resolved the case solely on Batson-Sandoval equal protection grounds.