Opinion ID: 1060898
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 25

Heading: competency of juror foreperson

Text: The appellant next contends that the juror foreperson's inability to read the verdict form without the assistance of the trial judge effectively denied him the right to an impartial jury. Specifically, the appellant suggests that since the foreperson had difficulty reading the verdict form aloud in open court, she probably encountered difficulty understanding the legal instructions contained in the written charges. The State contends that although the foreperson experienced some trouble reading the verdict form, there is no evidence in the record which indicates she could not understand the spoken word of the oral charges given by the judge. The trial judge read the charges to the jury in open court before allowing them to retire. Once the jury returned from their deliberations, the following exchange ensued: THE COURT: All right. I'm going to ask you to read that for me if you will. With regard to the first count of the indictment which alleges the murder of Patrick Smith, what is your verdict? MS. VALERIE CLARK: Life imprisonment. We, the jury  THE COURT: Will you read it  read that for me? MS. CLARK: We, the jury  okay  what's that? THE COURT: Unanimously. MS. CLARK: Unanimously determine that one  THE COURT: Statutory. MS. CLARK: Statutory. THE COURT: Aggravating. MS. CLARK: Aggravating  THE COURT: Circumstances. MS. CLARK: Circumstances has been proven by the State beyond a reasonable doubt. We, the jury, therefore, find the sentence shall be imprisonment for life. THE COURT: And, you've each affixed your name to that. Is that right? MS. CLARK: Right. THE COURT: With regard to the second count of the indictment which alleges the death of Rosemary Smith, what is your verdict? MS. CLARK: Punishment of death. THE COURT: Will you read that for me, please? MS. CLARK: We, the jury  THE COURT: Unanimously. MS. CLARK: Unanimously find that the following list  listing  THE COURT: Statutory. MS. CLARK: Statutory. THE COURT: Aggravating. MS. CLARK: Aggravating. THE COURT: Circumstances. MS. CLARK: Circumstances of  THE COURT: Do you want to list this for me? Can you read that, please? MS. CLARK: The murder was especially human  THE COURT: Heinous. MS. CLARK:  heinous  THE COURT: Atrocious. MS. CLARK:  atrocious, and cruel, in that is involved  THE COURT: Torture. MS. CLARK:  torture  THE COURT: Or serious  MS. CLARK:  or serious physical abuse beyond that necessary to prove  THE COURT:  produce death. MS. CLARK:  produce death. THE COURT: All right. Will you continue to read? MS. CLARK: We, the jury  THE COURT: Unanimously. MS. CLARK:  unanimously find that the State has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the circumstances are  THE COURT: Statutory. MS. CLARK:  statutory  THE COURT: Aggravating. MS. CLARK:  aggravating circumstance or circumstances so to list above outweigh any other  THE COURT: Mitigating. MS. CLARK:  mitigating circumstances. Therefore, we, the jury, unanimously find that the punishment for the defendant, Ronnie  THE COURT: Cauthern. MS. CLARK:  Cauthern shall be death. THE COURT: Be seated please. The Supreme Court dealt with this very issue in Kirkendoll v. State, 198 Tenn. 497, 281 S.W.2d 243 (1955), a case wherein the death penalty was affirmed. The Court held it was not error for the trial judge to accept a juror who could not read the written charges given by the court. Id. at 255. The Supreme Court reasoned as follows: We think though that other jurors if necessary could read this to that juror who could not read while in the jury room. The purpose of having the written charge before them ... was to prevent and keep the jury from having to keep running backward and forward into court getting the court to recharge them on various and sundry little things that they might have forgotten. It seems to us that as long as this written charge is in the jury room that there are others there who can read that this would satisfy that question. Consequently this assignment must be overruled. Id. We believe that the holding and reasoning in Kirkendoll is dispositive of the issue before us here. The appellant has failed to point to anything in the record, apart from the difficulty in the reading of the verdict form, which suggests Ms. Clark did not understand the oral charges given by the judge. Nor has the appellant demonstrated that he suffered any prejudice as a result of the Ms. Clark's reading skills. Accordingly, we conclude that this issue is without merit.