peremptory challenges to strike jurors who were less inclined to consider the death penalty violated his right to a fair and impartial jury. Although Clark concedes that Batson, unlike his case, involved racial discrimination, he objected based upon Batson, arguing that the State used its challenges to deliberately attempt to deprive him of a fair jury. Clark admits that he is unable to submit a New Mexico case on point, and also does not offer any supportive eases from other jurisdictions. {22} The State contends, and we agree, that there appears to be “universal agreement that no Batson violation results when jurors are peremptorily excused because of their reluctance to impose the death penalty.” State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz. 290, 896 P.2d 830, 842 (1995) (en bane) (rejecting (1991) (<HOLDING>). {23} The trial court did not err in denying
holding that a court must allow the defendant to ask in voir dire whether a potential juror would automatically impose the death penalty and suggesting that such a juror should be disqualified for cause holding that leaning towards the death penalty is not the same as an automatic vote for the death penalty holding that it is impermissible to use a peremptory challenge to exclude a potential juror based on race holding that a defendants exercise of peremptory challenges  is not denied or impaired when the defendant chooses to use a peremptory challenge to remove a juror who should have been excused for cause holding that a peremptory challenge is proper even if the juror merely expresses scruples against the death penalty that would not be sufficient to excuse him or her for cause