2021 New Mexico Statutes
Article 5 - Drawing and Empaneling Jurors
Section 38-5-11 - Qualifying jury panels.

A. The court shall empanel jurors in a random manner. The judge or the judge's designee shall preside over the empaneling of a petit jury panel. The district judge or the judge's designee shall preside over the empaneling of the grand jury panel. Jurors who appear for service shall be questioned under oath as to their eligibility for jury service by the judge or the judge's designee. Claims of exemption, requests for excuse from service or postponement of service shall be ruled upon by the judge or the judge's designee.
B. The judge or the judge's designee shall submit questionnaires to prospective jurors to:
(1) obtain any information that will aid the court in ruling on requests for exemption or excuse from service or postponement of service;
(2) aid the court and the parties in voir dire examination of jurors or in determining a juror's qualifications to serve on a particular petit jury panel, trial jury or grand jury; or
(3) aid in the determination of challenges for cause and peremptory challenges.
C. The judge or the judge's designee shall certify a numbered list of the jury panel members' names when qualified. The certified list of jurors and the questionnaires obtained from jurors shall be made available for inspection and copying by a party to a pending proceeding or their attorney or to any person having good cause for access to the list and the questionnaires.
History: 1953 Comp., § 19-1-11, enacted by Laws 1969, ch. 222, § 11; 1970, ch. 40, § 1; 1991, ch. 71, § 4; 2005, ch. 107, § 7.
Cross references. — For examination of jurors, see Rules 1-047 and 5-605 NMRA.
For juror questionnaires, see UJI Criminal 14-110 and 14-111 NMRA.
The 2005 amendment, effective July 1, 2005, deleted former Subsection B, which provided the criteria for excusing, excluding or postponing the services of a person as a juror; and added Subsection B(2), which provided that questionnaires to prospective jurors obtain information to aid in the determination of challenges.
The 1991 amendment, effective April 1, 1991, inserted "or his designee or magistrate or his designee" following "judge" throughout the section; in Subsection A, added the first and third sentences, rewrote the second sentence which read "The district judge will preside over the empaneling of petit jury and grand jury panels" and inserted "or postponement of services" in the final sentence; inserted "or postpone the services of" in the introductory phrase of Subsection B; inserted "or postponement of service" in the first sentence in Subsection C; and made related and minor stylistic changes throughout the section.
Impermissible manipulation of the jury venire. — Where the court clerk's systematic policy of placing all Spanish-only speaking prospective jurors in one panel, and effectively excluding these prospective jurors from all other panels, potentially violates both the prospective jurors' right to serve on a jury and the defendant's right to a fair and impartial jury. State v. Flores, 2015-NMCA-002, cert. granted, 2014-NMCERT-012.
Presence of defendant is not required during the jury culling process in which the judge or designee disqualifies or exempts prospective jurors pursuant to the statutory exemptions contained in 38-5-1 NMSA 1978 and this section. State v. Sanders, 2000-NMSC-032, 129 N.M. 728, 13 P.3d 460.
Defendant's presence is not required during discussion of jury questionnaires which is part of the jury culling process. — In a murder trial, where defendant's counsel, without defendant's presence, and counsel for the state conferenced with the district court judge to discuss jury questionnaires, the process employed by the district court was part of the culling process at which defendant had no fundamental right to be present because culling is basically an administrative process occurring outside the presence of the jurors during which defendant can provide no special insight into the removal of jurors from the pool who are disqualified or excused on statutory grounds, unlike the process of challenging potential jurors where the defendant may be able to discern some bias or prejudice. State v. Astorga, 2016-NMCA-015, cert. denied, 2015-NMCERT-012.
Law reviews. — For comment, "Juries - New Trial - Discovery of Juror's Disqualification or False Answer on Voir Dire as Ground for New Trial," see 7 Nat. Resources J. 415 (1967).
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 47 Am. Jur. 2d Jury § 178 et seq.
Criminal case, excusing qualified juror drawn in, as ground of complaint by defendant, 96 A.L.R. 508.
Illness or other disability of civil case juror, proper procedure upon, 99 A.L.R.2d 684.
Religious belief as ground for exemption or excuse from jury service, 2 A.L.R.3d 1392.
Law enforcement officers as qualified jurors in criminal cases, 72 A.L.R.3d 895.
Former law enforcement officers as qualified jurors in criminal cases, 72 A.L.R.3d 958.
Excusing, on account of public, charitable, or educational employment, one qualified and not specifically exempted as juror in state criminal case as ground of complaint by accused, 99 A.L.R.3d 1261.
Cure of prejudice resulting from statement by prospective juror during voir dire, in presence of other prospective jurors, as to defendant's guilt, 50 A.L.R.4th 969.
Exclusion of public and media from voir dire examination of prospective jurors in state criminal case, 16 A.L.R.5th 152.
Use of peremptory challenges to exclude persons from criminal jury based on religious affiliation - post-Batson state cases, 63 A.L.R.5th 375.
Exclusion of women from grand or trial jury or jury panel in criminal case as violation of constitutional rights of accused or as ground for reversal of conviction - state cases, 70 A.L.R.5th 587.
50 C.J.S. Juries §§ 205, 206.