Administrative Office of the Courts
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 13, 2026
SANTA FE – The state Supreme Court today ordered a new trial for an Otero County man on an aggravated drunken driving charge because his constitutional right to a fair trial was violated during jury selection.
The Court unanimously reversed Carlos Mendez’s conviction, ruling that the trial court erred in not granting a defense motion to eliminate a prospective juror from the jury panel because of statements indicating a bias in favor of law enforcement. The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to a trial by an impartial jury.
In an opinion written by Chief Justice Julie J. Vargas, the Court concluded that “Juror 6’s statements, viewed in their totality, demonstrate actual bias that would have affected the juror’s vote.”
“Furthermore, Defendant was prejudiced by the district court’s denial of his motion to strike Juror 6 because Defendant was compelled to use a peremptory strike on a juror who should have been removed for cause and then exhausted his remaining challenges before the selection of jurors was complete,” the Court wrote.
The justices heard oral arguments in the case in April in Portales at Eastern New Mexico University as part of the Court’s Rule of Law Program, in which students have an opportunity to see how courts resolve disputes.
Mendez was charged with drunken driving in 2020 after Tularosa police found him asleep in the driver’s seat of a vehicle idling at a stop sign. Testing indicated breath alcohol concentrations well above the legal presumption of intoxication. Mendez took his case to the Supreme Court after the state Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction.
During jury selection, attorneys can ask the trial court to remove a prospective juror for cause for a reason that likely impacts a defendant’s right to trial by an impartial jury, such as exhibiting a bias or having a conflict of interest. The court decides whether the individual will be disqualified. Additionally, the attorneys have a limited number of peremptory challenges that they can use to strike jurors for any reason without explanation.
In Mendez’s case, the defense questioned jurors about how they would weigh evidence during the trial. Juror 6 responded that law enforcement “obviously had reason to pull [Defendant] over. We would not be here if they didn’t have enough evidence [to prove him guilty].”
The juror answered yes when Mendez’s attorney asked if the juror had assumed his client “has done something” and whether that would “weigh on you” in deliberations.
The defense also asked if anyone “thinks that if law enforcement and another witness had a conflicting story, you would believe law enforcement over someone else because of their training or their experience.” Juror 6 responded, “Yes, I agree.”
Juror 6 again responded “yes,” when Mendez’s attorney asked whether the juror “would give law enforcement testimony more weight than someone else.”
The Court wrote, “Here, Juror 6’s statements went beyond expressing a favorable impression of law enforcement and demonstrated that his bias in favor of law enforcement would undermine the presumption of innocence to the extent that it ‘would actually affect the juror’s vote.’ Juror 6’s first statements made it clear that he did not presume Defendant was innocent and instead believed – based on his favorable view of law enforcement – Defendant would not be charged with a crime unless there was enough evidence to prove him guilty.”
The justices further explained, “Even more troubling, Juror 6 confirmed that his bias would weigh on him during deliberation. This indicates his bias was not merely theoretical. In this context, Juror 6’s admission that he would give greater weight to law enforcement testimony, based on an officer’s training and experience, demonstrates how his bias would affect his evaluation of the evidence presented.”
The Court rejected arguments by state prosecutors that any error during jury selection was harmless because of the evidence presented at trial weighed heavily in favor of Mendez’s guilt.
“We reject any attempt to employ a harmless error standard that relies on the weight of the evidence of the defendant’s guilt to evaluate potential structural errors impacting the trial itself,” the Court wrote.
The justices explained that the State’s harmless error analysis “fails to address the wrong the Sixth Amendment was intended to address — the right to a trial by an impartial jury.”
###
To read the decision in State v. Mendez, No. S-1-SC-40404, please visit the New Mexico Compilation Commission’s website using the following link:
https://nmonesource.com/nmos/nmsc/en/item/538396/index.do
| Barry Massey
Chief Communications Officer Communications Division Administrative Office of the Courts Supreme Court of New Mexico 202 E. Marcy St. Santa Fe, NM 87505 Cell: 505-470-3436 |
