Orellana (Carlos) v. State ( 2013 )

 lunch[,] . . . release [juror no. 70, and] . . . [t]hen . . do the Batson." After
formally dismissing juror no. 70, the district court conducted the Batson
hearing and rejected Orellana's challenge. 2
The jury convicted Orellana and this appeal followed. On
appeal, Orellana argues that the district court erred in denying his Batson
challenge . 3
In criminal prosecutions, the Sixth Amendment provides a
defendant the right to a fair trial—which includes the right "to be tried by
a jury whose members are selected pursuant to nondiscriminatory
criteria." Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 85-86 (1986). Thus,
peremptory challenges cannot be used to remove potential jurors solely on
the basis of their race. Diomampo v. State, 124 Nev. 414, 422, 185 P.3d
1031, 1036 (2008).
In reviewing a Batson challenge, this court gives great
deference to the trial court's decision. Diomampo, 124 Nev. at 422-23, 185
'We note that prior to juror no. 70's dismissal, there is no record of
Orellana providing a prima facie case for his Batson challenge or of the
State providing a race neutral reason for striking juror no. 70.
2 Theparties are familiar with the facts in this case; thus, we will not
recount them except as pertinent to this disposition.
3 0rellana raises three additional issues on appeal: (1) there was
insufficient evidence to support his conviction, (2) the district court erred
in allowing the jury to view an audio-video playback of a witness'
testimony, and (3) the district court erred in allowing non-relatives to
speak at the sentencing hearing. We conclude that there was sufficient
evidence to convict Orellana. See Mitchell v. State, 124 Nev. 807, 816, 192
P.3d 721, 727 (2008); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1970). Due to
our determination regarding the Batson issue, we decline to address
Orellana's additional arguments on appeal.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
P.3d at 1036-37. However, any structural errors in the Batson challenge
process warrant an automatic reversal because structural errors "'render a
trial fundamentally unfair." 4 Cortinas v. State, 124 Nev. 1013, 1024, 195
P.3d 315, 322 (2008) (quoting Neder v. U.S., 527 U.S. 1, 8 (1999)). If a
party formally asserts a Batson challenge to the opposing party's use of a
peremptory challenge, a district court commits a structural error if it
dismisses the challenged prospective juror prior to conducting a Batson
hearing. Brass v. State, 128 Nev. „ 291 P.3d 145, 149 (2012).
Here, the district court dismissed juror no. 70 prior to
conducting the Batson hearing; therefore, in accordance with Brass, the
district court committed a structural error. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court REVERSED AND
REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with
this order.
J.
Douglas
J.
GibSons
beigiot
J.
Parraguirre
4An error is structural when it affects how a "trial proceeds, rather
than simply an error in the trial process itself." Manley v. State, 115 Nev.
114, 122, 979 P.2d 703, 708 (1999) (quoting Arizona v. Fulminante, 499
U.S. 279, 310 (1991)).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A
cc: Clark County Public Defender
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A •