Opinion ID: 1060730
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Sua Sponte Dismissals for Cause

Text: Defendant contends the trial court erred by sua sponte excusing several prospective jurors for cause. In the instances cited by defendant, each juror had indicated that he or she could not follow the law. It is clear that each juror's views would prevent or substantially impair the performance of his [her] duties as a juror in accordance with his [her] instructions and his [her] oath. Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 424, 105 S.Ct. 844, 852, 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985). The trial court's findings on this issue are entitled to a presumption of correctness since they involve a determination of demeanor and credibility, and the burden rests on the defendant to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the trial court's determinations were erroneous. State v. Alley, 776 S.W.2d 506, 518 (Tenn.1989). The responses of these jurors gave the judge the definite impression they could not follow the law. Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. at 425-26, 105 S.Ct. at 853. These jurors met the standard for dismissal. See State v. Hutchison, 898 S.W.2d 161 (Tenn.1994). Furthermore, the argument that defense counsel should be allowed to rehabilitate such jurors is without merit. State v. Harris, 839 S.W.2d 54, 65 (Tenn.1992).