Opinion ID: 1057701
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: the trial court's failure to interview the jurors to ascertain whether they had been influenced by a former juror

Text: Mr. Banks takes issue with the trial court's handling of a juror who was excused before the jury began its deliberations on the penalty phase of the trial. Even though he did not raise this issue in the trial court or the Court of Criminal Appeals, he insists that the trial court committed plain error by not immediately removing the juror and by failing to question the remaining jurors to ascertain whether they had been influenced by the former juror. We have determined that the trial court did not commit plain error by failing to dismiss the juror immediately or by failing to interview the jury on its own motion as to the existence of potential prejudice either after it excused the juror or after the jury returned its verdict. We reiterate that while the decisions of the Court of Criminal Appeals and the Court of Appeals may require the parties to reframe their issues or to adjust their arguments when they seek review by this Court, litigants are not free simply to reserve issues until their case reaches this Court. When a defendant fails to present an issue on appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals, that issue is not properly before this Court and is, instead, waived. See State v. Butler, 108 S.W.3d 845, 854 (Tenn. 2003); State v. Hall, 8 S.W.3d 593, 596 n. 1 (Tenn.1999); State v. Buggs, 995 S.W.2d 102, 109 (Tenn.1999). Nonetheless, we have determined that the interests of justice prompt us to address this issue to determine whether the trial court committed plain error by not interviewing the jury.
During a break in the trial on April 8, 2005, Mr. Banks's trial counsel informed the trial court that Dorothy Rooks, a member of the jury venire for Mr. Banks's trial who had not been seated on the jury, informed one of the defense investigators, a friend of Ms. Rooks, that juror William Stroud had made a disturbing comment to her about the case prior to the trial. According to Mr. Banks's lawyer, Ms. Rooks told the investigator that Mr. Stroud commented that he was hoping that he would end up on this jury so that he could convince people to find him guilty and we'd be out by the weekend. The trial court expressed concern about the comment and decided to conduct a jury-out hearing to hear directly from Ms. Rooks. Later that day, after the State rested its case-in-chief, Ms. Rooks appeared in court and, with the jury excused, recounted what she had heard. Ms. Rooks stated that Mr. Stroud expressed disappointment about not having been selected as a juror in a different case in which she and Mr. Stroud had both been members of the jury venire. Specifically, Ms. Rooks recalled that Mr. Stroud stated I was going to drive that sucker. Ms. Rooks indicated that Mr. Stroud appeared to be adamant, but she was not sure exactly what Mr. Stroud meant. She indicated that the other case was also a first degree murder case but not a capital case. Ms. Rooks stated that she became concerned when she learned that Mr. Stroud had been selected as a juror in Mr. Banks's case. She volunteered that I just thought that it didn't seem like it was a jury of his peers. I mean, there was only one black lady there. After commenting on how it had been impressed with Mr. Stroud based upon his answers during voir dire and his attentiveness during the proceedings, the trial court asked the bailiffs whether they had observed anything that suggested that Mr. Stroud was interested in railroading Mr. Banks. After the bailiffs responded in the negative, the trial court informed the attorneys that it would need to consider how to address this matter. The trial court also stated that questioning Mr. Stroud about a casual statement he made [about another case] on the sidewalk while smoking a cigarette could be counterproductive. Later the same day, the court again addressed the matter of Mr. Stroud. The trial court stated: I have a little bit of concern, I have to be honest with you, that [Ms. Rooks's] greater concern might be the racial make-up of the jury because she let she made that statement under oath when she testified today. And I don't know why that statement would be relevant to the issue we were discussing and for which she came down here, unless it was really bubbling right beneath the surface and it finally came out when she took the stand. And that, perhaps, is the overriding reason[] for her lodging the complaint. I'm concerned about that. Nevertheless, the trial court decided the more prudent course would be to replace Mr. Stroud with an alternate juror. This took place when the trial court excused the other alternate jurors before the jury deliberations began. Outside the presence of the other jurors, the trial court explained its reasoning directly to Mr. Stroud: There was a juror that was on this larger panel ... [who] overheard a remark that was attributed to you outside this building after the close of court or y'all had been excused [from the jury venire for a different trial].... [T]he question having been raised by this juror concerning that remark and how it may affect your impartiality in this case was such that after agonizing over whether to remove you from the jury or not, I felt that just out of an abundance of caution so that no question could be raised in the event that the jury finds Mr. Banks guilty, that I would insert the alternate and remove you from the jury. Mr. Stroud was excused prior to and did not participate in the jury deliberations in this case. Essentially, he became the equivalent of an excused alternate juror. Mr. Banks did not request the trial court to interview the jury when it dismissed Mr. Stroud before deliberations started and, likewise, did not request the trial court to interview the jury after it returned a guilty verdict to ascertain whether the verdict had been influenced by Mr. Stroud's presence. Therefore, our review of the process the trial court used to excuse Mr. Stroud is for plain error.
Mr. Banks's arguments on this issue provide neither a logically nor a legally supported basis for finding error, much less plain error, in the trial court's failure to immediately excuse Mr. Stroud after hearing Ms. Rooks's testimony regarding his comments in another, unrelated case. As far as this record shows, the trial court had no basis to be concerned about Mr. Stroud's presence on the jury before Mr. Banks's trial counsel expressed concern about statements he had purportedly made to Ms. Rooks. Because the report of Mr. Stroud's comments was second-hand, the trial court decided to hear directly from Ms. Rooks before deciding whether remedial action was warranted. When the trial court questioned Ms. Rooks, it became apparent that the statements attributed to Mr. Stroud did not involve Mr. Banks's case, as was originally represented, but rather an earlier, unrelated case in another court. Rather than excusing Mr. Stroud immediately, the trial court allowed the lawyers to make their final arguments and then charged the jury before it replaced Mr. Stroud with an alternate juror. We decline to find plain error with regard to the timing of Mr. Stroud being excused from the jury. The presentation of the evidence was essentially completed when the defense raised a concern about Mr. Stroud. After the trial court interviewed Ms. Rooks, the jury was alone together for only one additional brief break before the trial court completed its charge to the jury and replaced Mr. Stroud with an alternate juror. Accordingly, we decline to find the trial court committed plain error by waiting to excuse Mr. Stroud until immediately before the jury retired to deliberate. By the same token, we decline to find that the trial court committed plain error by not interviewing [20] the other jurors, either before they retired or following their verdict to ascertain whether they had been influenced by Mr. Stroud's presence on the jury. Mr. Banks did not request the trial court to interview the jurors following Ms. Rooks's testimony and cites no authority requiring the trial court to do so on its own motion. He has failed to demonstrate that the trial court's failure to interview the jurors prior to deliberations violated a clear and unequivocal rule of law or adversely affected one of his substantial rights. Accordingly, we decline to find that the trial court committed plain error by failing to interview the jurors prior to their deliberations. In the same vein, we decline to find that the trial court committed plain error by not interviewing the jurors following the verdict to determine whether they had been improperly influenced by Mr. Stroud. Defendants in criminal cases have a statutory right to have the jury polled upon request. Tenn.Code Ann. § 20-9-508 (1994). However, they waive this right if they fail to make a timely request that the jury be polled. Rice v. State, 4 Tenn. Crim.App. 600, 605, 475 S.W.2d 178, 180 (1971). Mr. Banks has failed to demonstrate that the trial court's failure to interview the jurors regarding Mr. Stroud after they returned their verdict violated a clear and unequivocal rule of law or adversely affected one of his substantial rights.