Opinion ID: 891652
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Grant a Mistrial Sua Sponte

Text: {52} Defendant argues that the district court erred by not conducting evidentiary hearings before one juror withdrew and to determine why two witnesses, Wayne and Coley, were in fear. Midway through trial, one juror requested, in chambers, that she be excused because her daughter was the Ingrams' neighbor. Defendant was not present, but his counsel gave a full and complete waiver to Defendant's presence. Defendant did not object to his counsel's actions. Wayne testified for the State, and Coley testified for the defense. Neither said who or what was making them afraid.
{53} As Defendant did not move for a mistrial on these grounds during trial, our review is for fundamental error. See Gallegos, 2009-NMSC-017, ¶ 27, 146 N.M. 88, 206 P.3d 993.
{54} In Gallegos, we determined there was no fundamental error when the district court did not order a mistrial sua sponte after two jurors asked the bailiff if the defendant would plead, and the judge conducted individual voir dire and offered a curative instruction. Id. ¶ 29. The judge took necessary steps to determine whether bias or prejudice existed in the minds of the jurors[.] Id. Here, the district court did not commit fundamental error by failing to declare a mistrial sua sponte when one juror was excused because she was fearful of repercussions against her daughter, she said on the record that she could not be impartial, no other jurors knew she was making such a request, and Defendant waived his right to be present when the district court dismissed the juror. {55} Defendant also argues that the court should have declared a mistrial sua sponte because Coley and Wayne said they were scared to testify. As cited to us by Defendant, It is axiomatic in our system of justice that an individual is entitled to a fair trial not a perfect one. United States v. Mannie, 509 F.3d 851, 857 (7th Cir.2007) (finding, under abuse of discretion review, that trial court erred by not granting mistrial when courtroom atmosphere was extremely disruptive and trial court's voir dire and curative instructions were not enough). Here, we are reviewing for fundamental error, and the failure of the district court to conduct an unrequested evidentiary hearing does not shock the conscience such that reversal is required.