Baca, 111 N.M. 270, 274, 804 P.2d 1089, 1093 (Ct.App.1990). The trial court properly excludes a juror for cause where the juror’s views would “prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.” State v. Sutphin, 107 N.M. 126, 129, 753 P.2d 1314, 1317 (1988) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We commit this inquiry to the discretion of the trial court because the trial judge can best assess a potential juror’s state of mind. Id. In this case, Defendant does not argue that the trial court failed to excuse jurors for cause, but raises the somewhat different question of whether certain jurors should not have been excused. See, e.g., State v. Jim, 107 N.M. 779, 782-83, 765 P.2d 195, 198-99 (Ct.App.1988) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the larger question he raises is
holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when the trial judge questioned the juror extensively enough to satisfy itself that the juror was not biased emphasis added holding trial court did not abuse its discretion by ruling based only on affidavits holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling motion for new trial on perjury grounds holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding violation was willful and substantial holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in excusing a juror for cause