State v. Sisneros
Opinion
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date.
3 Plaintiff -Appellee,
4 No. 31,550
6 Defendant-Appellant.
8 John P. Paternoster, District Judge
9 Gary K. King, Attorney General 10 Santa Fe, NM
11 for Appellee
12 Jacqueline L. Cooper, Chief Public Defender 13 Mary Barket, Assistant Appellate Defender 14 Santa Fe, NM
15 for Appellant
17 BUSTAMANTE, Judge. 1 Defendant challenges his convictions for aggravated driving while under the
2 influence of intoxicating liquor (4th offense), contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 66-8-
3 102 (D) (2010). We issued a second notice of proposed disposition proposing to
4 affirm on August 7, 2012. Defendant has responded with a timely second
5 memorandum in opposition, which we have duly considered. We remain
6 unpersuaded, and we therefore affirm.
7 Defendant continues to argue that the district court erred in denying his motion
8 to disqualify a juror for cause. Defendant argues that juror Karen Ratliff should have
9 been disqualified because her son worked for the district attorney’s office. [Second
10 MIO 1] We review this issue under an abuse of discretion standard. See State v.
11 Johnson, 2010-NMSC-016, ¶ 31, 148 N.M. 50, 229 P.3d 523. An abuse of discretion
12 occurs when the ruling is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and
13 circumstances of the case. “We cannot say the trial court abused its discretion by its
14 ruling unless we can characterize it as clearly untenable or not justified by reason.”
15 State v. Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 41, 126 N.M. 438, 971 P.2d 829 (internal quotation
16 marks and citations omitted). “Where the trial court clearly abused its discretion in
17 failing to excuse a juror who could not be impartial, prejudice is presumed if the
18 petitioner used all peremptory challenges on potential jurors who could be excused for
19 cause before a jury was seated.” Johnson, 2010-NMSC-016, ¶ 31.
2 1 In his second memorandum in opposition, Defendant acknowledges that there
2 was no evidence that Ms. Ratliff’s son was involved in this case or that she could not
3 be impartial. [Second MIO 1-2] Rather, Defendant points out that there was no
4 evidence that the juror’s son was not involved in the case. However, “[t]he
5 challenging party bears the burden of proving juror bias.” Id. Defendant also argues
6 that we should find implied juror bias based on the nuances of the connection between
7 Ms. Ratliff and the district attorney’s office. Specifically, Defendant argues that Ms.
8 Ratliff was likely proud of her son and had a favorable opinion of his co-workers and
9 the work he did. [Second MIO 1-2] We find this insufficient to establish implied juror
10 bias. See State v. Sanchez, 120 N.M. 247, 250, 252, 901 P.2d 178, 181, 183 (1995)
11 (rejecting a claim of implied juror bias based on the juror’s sister’s employment with
12 the district attorney’s office and determining that the relationship was indirect and
13 insufficient as a matter of law to establish implied juror bias). We therefore hold that
14 the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to disqualify Ms. Ratliff for
15 cause.
16 Defendant also continues to argue that the district court erred in allowing
17 Officer James Valdez to testify to the results of the auto intoxilizer machine. [Second
18 MIO 2] Defendant makes no new arguments in his second memorandum in
3 1 opposition and relies on his previous arguments. For the reasons stated in our second
2 notice of proposed summary disposition, we affirm on this issue as well.
3 For these reasons, we affirm Defendant’s convictions.
5 6 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge
7 WE CONCUR:
8 9 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge
10 11 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
State v. Sisneros (State v. Sisneros) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.