 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Landgraf1/11/1996
etion in ruling on motions to change venue and the Appellate Courts will not disturb its decision absent a showing of an abuse of that discretion." The burden to show this abuse of discretion lies with the appellant.
{8} Defendant cites this Court to no evidence in the record to substantiate his claim that the district court abused its discretion, but argues generally that the survey as well as later voir dire "showed there was extensive knowledge of the case and opinions thereof by the people in the community." Proof of exposure of venire members to publicity about a case does not establish a presumption of prejudice. Id.; see also (extensive pretrial publicity by itself does not necessarily establish prejudice). Rather, Defendant must prove that the jurors had "such fixed opinions that they could not Judge impartially the guilt of the defendant." (punctuation and citation omitted). This he did not do. In short, nothing in Defendant's argument convinces us the district court acted unfairly and committed a palpable abuse of discretion. See .
III. The District Court Properly Denied Defendant's Peremptory Juror Challenge
{9} Several of the accident victims were black and Defendant is not. Defendant argues the district court erred in refusing to honor his peremptory challenge of a black juror. When such a challenge is raised by any party the trial court must engage in a three-step analysis. Purkett v. Elem, 131 L. Ed. 2d 834, 115 S. Ct. 1769, 1770-71 (1995). First, the opponent of a peremptory challenge must make out a prima facie case that the challenge shows racial discrimination. The proponent of the peremptory strike must then come forward with a race-neutral explanation. If such a race-neutral explanation is tendered, the trial court must decide whether the opponent of the peremptory challenge has proved purposeful racial discrimination. Id.
{10} Here, the prosecutor made out a prima facie case of racial discrimination. He showed that there were three potential jurors who were black and that Defendant's counsel had already stricken a black woman. The prosecutor then pointed out that defense counsel also struck the juror at issue, a black male. After the prosecutor objected based on this showing, the district court asked defense counsel his reasons for striking the black juror. Defense counsel tendered the race-neutral explanation that he perceived an educational deficit that would likely cause the potential juror to have difficulty understanding Defendant's medical testimony.
{11} Based on the tendered explanation, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding purposeful discrimination. The trial court is not required to accept tendered race-neutral explanations at face value, but should scrutinize them to insure that purposeful discrimination is not taking place. See ) (race-neutral explanations should not be accepted when facts show same factors used to strike Hispanics were not applied to Anglos), cert. denied, 119 N.M. 20, 888 P.2d 466 (1995).
IV. Admissibility of Evidence
A. Testimony Regarding the Accident Scene
{12} Defendant argues that because it was never disputed that the accident produced very serious injuries and that heroic efforts were required to extricate the victims from the wreckage, it was error to admit any testimony regarding those subjects. Defendant maintains such evidence was not relevant under SCRA 1986, 11-401 (Repl. 1994) (Rule 401) and, even if it was relevant, it should have been excluded as more prejudicial than probative under SCRA 1986, 11-403 (Repl. 1994) (Rule 403).
{13} As a predicate for depraved mind murder in this case the State had to prove
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 New Mexico DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|