State v. Mendez, S-1-SC-40404

Defendant Carlos Miguel Mendez was charged with aggravated DWI after a Tularosa officer found him asleep in a truck at a stop sign and breath tests showed BACs of .24 and .22. 1
During voir dire, Juror 6 said law enforcement had enough evidence to prove Defendant guilty, Defendant had probably done something, and that belief would weigh on his deliberations. 2
Juror 6 also stated he would give law enforcement testimony more weight than other witnesses. 3
The district court denied Defendant's for-cause strike of Juror 6, so Defendant used a peremptory challenge and exhausted all of his peremptories before jury selection ended. 4
The jury convicted Defendant, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari. 5
The Supreme Court held Juror 6 was actually biased, Defendant preserved the issue, and the denial of the for-cause strike prejudiced Defendant under Fuson. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Defendant preserve the full actual-bias challenge to Juror 6? 7	State said only the specific statements raised below were preserved.	Mendez preserved a bias challenge by moving to strike Juror 6 for cause.	Yes; the appellate argument was not materially different and all statements were reviewable. 8
Did Juror 6 show actual bias requiring excusal for cause? 9	State said Juror 6 merely expressed general trust in police and could be fair.	Mendez argued Juror 6 presumed guilt and favored law enforcement testimony.	Yes; Juror 6's statements showed actual bias in favor of law enforcement. 10
Was Defendant prejudiced by using a peremptory strike on Juror 6? 11	State urged harmless-error review and asked to overrule Fuson.	Mendez argued Fuson presumes prejudice when a biased juror is removed peremptorily after all strikes are used.	Yes; Fuson controlled and Defendant was entitled to a new trial. 12

State v. McFall, 67 N.M. 260, 354 P.2d 547 (N.M. 1960) (explains the constitutional right to an impartial jury 13)
Fuson v. State, 105 N.M. 632, 735 P.2d 1138 (N.M. 1987) (holds prejudice is presumed when a biased juror is removed peremptorily and all strikes are exhausted 14)
State v. Jason F., 125 N.M. 111, 957 P.2d 1145 (N.M. 1998) (preservation requires a fairly invoked ruling 15)
State v. Gomez, 122 N.M. 777, 932 P.2d 1 (N.M. 1997) (preservation serves to alert the trial court and opposing party 16)
State v. Johnson, 148 N.M. 50, 229 P.3d 523 (N.M. 2010) (abuse of discretion review for juror-selection rulings and potential bias 17)
State v. Romero, 533 P.3d 735 (N.M. 2023) (defines actual bias and explains when a juror must be excused for cause 18)
Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81 (U.S. 1988) (holding on peremptory challenges and impartial jury 19)
United States v. Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304 (U.S. 2000) (using a peremptory to cure a for-cause error does not itself deny the challenge 20)
Rivera v. Illinois, 556 U.S. 148 (U.S. 2009) (state law controls the consequences of an erroneous denial of a peremptory or related challenge 21)
State v. Pieri, 146 N.M. 155, 207 P.3d 1132 (N.M. 2009) (lists stare decisis factors for reconsidering precedent 22)