Mexicans to vote, hold office, and sit upon juries, but it does not protect a defendant’s right to an impartial jury. See N.M. Const, art. VII, § 3. That provision does not correspond to the impartial jury provision of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution or to the equal protection guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment. See U.S. Const, amends. VI, XIV. Defendant did not argue before the district court that the rights of New Mexico jurors were being violated, and the district court did not make a ruling on that issue. Defendant did not cite N.M. Const, art. II, § 14, the provision that protects the right to an impartial jury. Therefore, he did not preserve any argument under the state constitution. See State v. Janzen, 2007-NMCA-134, ¶ 11, 142 N.M. 638, 168 P.3d 768 (<HOLDING>). {12} Similarly, while Defendant also cites
holding a party must timely present his legal theories to the trial court so as to give the trial court an opportunity to rule properly holding that although this court affords broad discretion to the district court in determining the type of investigation necessary to determine juror bias the district court must provide the defendant a meaningful opportunity to prove the same holding that the appeals court may affirm the ruling of the district court on any basis which the record supports holding that this court does not review decisions of a district court not to depart downward unless the record reflects that the district court was not aware of or did not understand its discretion to make such a departure holding that preservation for review requires a fair ruling or decision by the district court in order to provide the lower court with an opportunity to correct any mistake give the opposing party an opportunity to demonstrate why the district court should rule in its favor and create a record which enables this court to make informed decisions