N.M. Stat. » N.M. Stat. / Chapter 38 / Article 5
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 38-5-11 (2026)

Qualifying jury panels.

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
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.

                                       ANNOTATIONS

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.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1983–2022 · leading case: State v. Flores, 2015 NMCA 002 (N.M. Ct. App. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Flores, 2015 NMCA 002 (N.M. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 4× “NMSA 1978, § 38-5-11(A) (2005). Accordingly, it is important to stress that the Ninth Judicial District’s court clerk’s systematic policy of impermissibly manipulating the jury selection process is a miscarriage of that responsibility and borders on the egregious.”
State v Lucero, 508 P.3d 917 (N.M. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 4× “He claimed error by the magistrate court in violation of NMSA 1978, Section 38-5-11(C) (2005) (addressing procedures for review of jury questionnaires in the district court), as well as violation of his right to due process, and sought reversal of his convictions, and remand to…”
State v. Astorga, 2016 NMCA 015 (N.M. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 6× “Section 38-5-11(B). In Sanders, 2000-NMSC-032 , ¶ 24, our Supreme Court held that the culling process involves both statutes.”
State v. Sanders, 13 P.3d 460 (N.M. 2000). · cites it 2× “The reasoning in Huff is particularly convincing when viewed with Section 38-5-11(C), which allows the inspection and copying of both the certified list and the questionnaires of the panel members.”
Gannett Co., Inc. v. State, 571 A.2d 735 (Del. 1990). “§ 2A:71-2; N.M.Stat.Ann. § 38-5-11; N.D.Cent.Code § 27-09.”
State v. Segotta, 665 P.2d 280 (N.M. Ct. App. 1983). “When it became apparent that a number of the prospective jurors had never been sworn or properly qualified, the State moved to dismiss the entire panel.”
State v. Astorga, 2016 NMCA 15 (N.M. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 8× “Section 38-5-11(B). In Sanders, 2000-NMSC-032 , ¶ 24, our Supreme Court held that the culling process involves both statutes.”
State v. Flores, 2015 NMCA 2 (N.M. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 4× “NMSA 1978, § 38-5-11(A) (2005). Accordingly, it is important to stress that the Ninth Judicial District’s court clerk’s systematic policy of impermissibly manipulating the jury selection process is a miscarriage of that responsibility and borders on the egregious.”
State v. Lucero (N.M. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 4× “He claimed error by the magistrate court in violation of NMSA 1978, Section 38-5-11(C) (2005) (addressing procedures for review of jury questionnaires in the district court), as well as violation of his right to due process, and sought reversal of his convictions, and remand to…”
State v. Flores (N.M. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 4× “NMSA 1978, § 38-5-11(A) (2005). Accordingly, it is important to 3 stress that the Ninth Judicial District’s court clerk’s systematic policy of 4 impermissibly manipulating the jury selection process is a miscarriage of that 5 responsibility and borders on the egregious.”
State v. Ashley (N.M. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “9 {16} Finally, Defendant cites NMSA 1978, Section 38-5-11(A) (2005), which 10 provides that “[t]he court shall empanel jurors in a random manner[,]” NMSA 1978, 11 Section 38-5-5(B) (1997), which defines “jury tampering” as “the selection or drawing 12 of jurors other than in…”
N.M. Stat. § 38-5-11(A): 4 cases
State v. Flores, 2015 NMCA 002 (N.M. Ct. App. 2014). “NMSA 1978, § 38-5-11(A) (2005). Accordingly, it is important to stress that the Ninth Judicial District’s court clerk’s systematic policy of impermissibly manipulating the jury selection process is a miscarriage of that responsibility and borders on the egregious.”
State v. Flores, 2015 NMCA 2 (N.M. Ct. App. 2014). “NMSA 1978, § 38-5-11(A) (2005). Accordingly, it is important to stress that the Ninth Judicial District’s court clerk’s systematic policy of impermissibly manipulating the jury selection process is a miscarriage of that responsibility and borders on the egregious.”
State v. Flores (N.M. Ct. App. 2014). “NMSA 1978, § 38-5-11(A) (2005). Accordingly, it is important to 3 stress that the Ninth Judicial District’s court clerk’s systematic policy of 4 impermissibly manipulating the jury selection process is a miscarriage of that 5 responsibility and borders on the egregious.”
State v. Ashley (N.M. Ct. App. 2015). “9 {16} Finally, Defendant cites NMSA 1978, Section 38-5-11(A) (2005), which 10 provides that “[t]he court shall empanel jurors in a random manner[,]” NMSA 1978, 11 Section 38-5-5(B) (1997), which defines “jury tampering” as “the selection or drawing 12 of jurors other than in…”
N.M. Stat. § 38-5-11(B): 2 cases
State v. Astorga, 2016 NMCA 015 (N.M. Ct. App. 2015). “Section 38-5-11(B). In Sanders, 2000-NMSC-032 , ¶ 24, our Supreme Court held that the culling process involves both statutes.”
State v. Astorga, 2016 NMCA 15 (N.M. Ct. App. 2015). “Section 38-5-11(B). In Sanders, 2000-NMSC-032 , ¶ 24, our Supreme Court held that the culling process involves both statutes.”
N.M. Stat. § 38-5-11(B)(2): 2 cases
State v. Astorga, 2016 NMCA 015 (N.M. Ct. App. 2015). “Section 38-5-11(B). In Sanders, 2000-NMSC-032 , ¶ 24, our Supreme Court held that the culling process involves both statutes.”
State v. Astorga, 2016 NMCA 15 (N.M. Ct. App. 2015). “Section 38-5-11(B). In Sanders, 2000-NMSC-032 , ¶ 24, our Supreme Court held that the culling process involves both statutes.”
N.M. Stat. § 38-5-11(C): 5 cases
State v Lucero, 508 P.3d 917 (N.M. Ct. App. 2022). “He claimed error by the magistrate court in violation of NMSA 1978, Section 38-5-11(C) (2005) (addressing procedures for review of jury questionnaires in the district court), as well as violation of his right to due process, and sought reversal of his convictions, and remand to…”
State v. Sanders, 13 P.3d 460 (N.M. 2000). “The reasoning in Huff is particularly convincing when viewed with Section 38-5-11(C), which allows the inspection and copying of both the certified list and the questionnaires of the panel members.”
State v. Astorga, 2016 NMCA 015 (N.M. Ct. App. 2015). “Section 38-5-11(B). In Sanders, 2000-NMSC-032 , ¶ 24, our Supreme Court held that the culling process involves both statutes.”
State v. Lucero (N.M. Ct. App. 2022). “He claimed error by the magistrate court in violation of NMSA 1978, Section 38-5-11(C) (2005) (addressing procedures for review of jury questionnaires in the district court), as well as violation of his right to due process, and sought reversal of his convictions, and remand to…”
State v. Astorga, 2016 NMCA 15 (N.M. Ct. App. 2015). “Section 38-5-11(B). In Sanders, 2000-NMSC-032 , ¶ 24, our Supreme Court held that the culling process involves both statutes.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.