¶ 11, 131 N.M. 746, 42 P.3d 851. Child argues that the prosecution’s removal of the only Native American from the jury panel raises an inference of discrimination. The State contends that even if Begay was the only Native American member of the venire, which defense counsel did not establish below, Child failed to meet his burden of proving discriminatory intent. {30} Child is correct that our cases have indicated that a prima facie case can be made when “the prosecution uses a peremptory challenge to remove the sole member of a particular racial group from the jury.” Id. ¶ 29. A defendant need not share the same race as the prospective juror to object to peremptory challenges that exclude jurors based on race. Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 402, 111 S.Ct. 1364, 113 L.Ed.2d 411 (1991) (<HOLDING>). “A single prospective juror may be stricken
holding batson claim untimely because it was not made before the jury or the last juror including the alternates is sworn but remanding for new trial in interests of justice holding that rule 606b precludes any inquiry into the validity of the verdict based on juror testimony regarding racial or ethnic comments made during the course of deliberations but that the rule against juror impeachment cannot be applied so inflexibly as to bar juror testimony in those rare and grave cases where claims of racial or ethnic bias during jury deliberations implicate a defendants right to due process and an impartial jury internal quotation marks omitted holding the batson rule was not to be applied retroactively to a state conviction on federal habeas review holding that batson applies to a prosecutors use of peremptory challenges regardless of whether the stricken juror is of the same race as the defendant recognizing that one purpose of batson is to address the right of a juror not to be excluded from serving on a jury for racial reasons