and with knowledge of the numerical division of the jury, rather than to declare a mistrial, deprived him of his constitutional right to a fair and impartial trial. See State v. Rickerson, 95 N.M. 666, 667-68, 625 P.2d 1183, 1184-85 (1981) (considering whether inquiry into jury’s numerical division violated due process). {49} For the trial to be considered fundamentally unfair in this instance, Defendant must demonstrate that the cumulative effect of the district court’s actions and the circumstances under which they arose were so egregious and so unduly coercive on the jury to abandon its honest convictions to arrive at the verdict that those actions and circumstances violated his right to a fair and impartial trial. See State v. McCarter, 93 N.M. 708, 711, 604 P.2d 1242, 1245 (1980) (<HOLDING>); see also Rickerson, 95 N.M. at 667-68, 625
holding that the trial courts order violated due process because it was unclear whether or not the defendant was required to appear on the date in question holding that detention of approximately eight months violated due process holding that the coercive nature of the district courts handling of jury deadlock violated due process holding that a mandatory presumption in a jury charge which directed a finding on an element of the criminal offense violated the due process clause holding that due process requires a hearing appropriate to the nature of the case