concluding that peremptories based on religious affiliation violate at least state constitution
How later courts described this case
- concluding that peremptories based on religious affiliation violate at least state constitution
- holding that "Spanish-surnamed persons clearly constitute a cognizable group of people" for the purpose of both Sixth Amendment and equal protection claims against the use of peremptory challenges
- holding that Spanish-surnamed people constitute a cognizable group for the purpose of Sixth Amendment and Equal Protection Clause claims against the use of peremptory challenges
- addressing right to trial by an impartial jury, but refusing to address equal protection question because the issue was not raised in defendant's petition for certiorari
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
LOHR, Justice,
specially concurring.
I agree with the result reached by the majority. As detailed in part V of the majority opinion, the record does not support a contention that the prosecution peremptorily challenged Spanish-surnamed venirepersons for discriminatory reasons. Under these circumstances, it is unnecessary to address the difficult constitutional issues discussed in detail in the majority opinion, and I think it inadvisable to do so. See People v. Fields, 697 P.2d 749, 761 (Colo.App.1984) (Kelly, J., specially concurring).