State v. Nayeli C., 35,209

Child (Nayeli C.) was charged with misdemeanor battery upon a household member for grabbing her mother’s phone during an argument that produced scratches on the mother.
During voir dire, juror #12 was mistakenly excused and left the courthouse before the error was discovered and the juror could be returned. Child moved for a mistrial; the court denied the motion.
The rule of witness exclusion (Rule 11-615) was invoked at trial; Mother testified for the State during its case-in-chief.
Mother remained in the courtroom and heard parts of Child’s testimony despite the exclusionary rule; after Child testified, the jury submitted questions.
The court allowed Child to answer a jury question about whether Mother used violence to take the phone; the State then sought to recall Mother for limited rebuttal on that specific issue. Child objected; the court permitted limited rebuttal.
The jury convicted Child; the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding no reversible error in the juror excusal or the limited rebuttal testimony.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mistaken excusal of a prospective juror required a mistrial	State: motion untimely and no prejudice; court could not restore juror after he left	Child: excusal deprived her of an impartial jury array and warranted mistrial	Denied — no manifest error or abuse of discretion; no claim jurors were partial and motion was untimely
Whether permitting Mother’s limited rebuttal testimony violated Rule 11-615 (witness exclusion)	State: rebuttal narrowly tailored to new testimony elicited by jury question; did not prejudice Child	Child: Rule 11-615 was violated because Mother heard Child’s testimony and should not be recalled	Denied — court acted within discretion to limit rebuttal to jury question; no showing of prejudice

State v. Coffin, 128 N.M. 192, 991 P.2d 477 (discussing review for abuse of discretion in juror excusal) (abuse-of-discretion standard)
State v. Hovey, 106 N.M. 300, 742 P.2d 512 (permitting limited exceptions to witness exclusion; rule applied with discretion)
State v. Romero, 69 N.M. 187, 365 P.2d 58 (exclusion rule within trial court discretion; prejudice required to show reversible error)
State v. Jim, 107 N.M. 779, 765 P.2d 195 (an accused is entitled only to an impartial array for peremptory challenges; excusal without sufficient cause does not alone prove prejudice)
State v. Simonson, 100 N.M. 297, 669 P.2d 1092 (purpose of Rule 11-615 and principle that defendant cannot complain about evidence he introduced)