Opinion ID: 1058506
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Separation of Sequestered Jury

Text: At the hearing on the motion for new trial, juror Boyd testified that after being selected for the jury, she advised her mother she was selected for a profile murder case and was upset. Defense counsel stated they had interviewed the juror's mother, who stated her daughter came home in order to secure clothing for her sequestration and said she was extremely upset in having to serve on a high profile gangster case. The trial court found that juror Boyd had already testified she was upset and told her mother she was sitting on a profile murder case. Thus, the court saw no relevance in the mother's proposed testimony. The defendant made no formal proffer of the mother's testimony. Although we question whether this issue has been properly preserved due to the failure to make a formal proffer of the mother's proposed testimony, we find it without merit. Once separation of a sequestered jury has been shown by the defendant, the state has the burden of showing that such separation did not result in prejudice to the defendant. State v. Bondurant, 4 S.W.3d 662, 672 (Tenn.1999). Here, the record supports the finding by the trial court that there was no showing of prejudice even if the mother testified in accordance with defense counsel's declarations. This issue lacks merit.