includes not having to reach Defendants’ arguments on waiver. 1. “Equalization” of Challenges. Plaintiff argues that this Court should construe SCRA 1-038(E) to authorize giving her a number of peremptory challenges equal to the number given to all Defendants. However, the rule’s plain language authorizes granting additional peremptory challenges only to multiple parties with diverse interests that are on the same side of the lawsuit. Carraro, 106 N.M. at 444, 744 P.2d at 917. The trial court cannot grant a party additional peremptory challenges in a manner that is not contemplated by SCRA 1-038(E). Id.; see also Morris v. Cartwright, 57 N.M. 328, 331, 258 P.2d 719, 721-22 (1953) (former law); American Ins. Co. v. Foutz & Bursum, 60 N.M. 351, 354-57, 291 P.2d 1081, 1083-84 (1955) (<HOLDING>). The rule could have easily provided for such
recognizing that the holding of cartwright does not apply when there is a plaintiff a defendant and a thirdparty defendant holding that there is no sixth amendment error when the sentence does not exceed the maximum authorized by facts the defendant admitted recognizing that for a john doe defendant there is no mistake in identifying the correct defendant rather the problem is not being able to identify that defendant holding that rule does not apply where defendant made false representations holding that collateral estoppel does not apply when there is a significant change in the legal climate