Opinion ID: 1355273
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Refusal to Voir Dire Juror Regarding Relationship with Witness

Text: After the jury returned its verdicts but prior to the penalty phase, Defendant Thomas alerted the trial court that one of the jurors worked with defense witness Russell Carpenter. The trial judge responded that he [did not] think that the defense witnesses were mentioned during voir dire in terms of asking the jurors whether they knew potential witnesses. ... And so that certainly can't be held against the juror. I mean she didn't refuse to reveal any knowledge of a relationship to any of your witnesses because those witnesses were never [identified] during voir dire ... [f]or them to respond to. And if it's just a matter of her having worked with this witness, who wasn't actually a fact witness. His role was very minimal. The following colloquy then occurred: MR. SCHOLL: Everybody stop just for a second. Not my client, the juror and one of the witnesses know each other. That came to me through my client  the information. MS. NICHOLS: Have you talked to Mr. Carpenter  how he found out or something that  MR. SCHOLL: Evidently Mr. Bond and Mr. Thomas both talked to Mr. Carpenter, and Mr. Carpenter said that he knew this person. And that's the extent of it. THE COURT: Okay. Just for the record, though, because I clearly misunderstood you when you first  MR. SCHOLL: I'm sorry. THE COURT: I thought your client knew him. I thought your client's relatives knew them, I thought there was an actual relationship there. But none of that's true. The sole statement is that your witness, Russell Carpenter, who was the final witness for the defense ... [w]orked with this juror at one time. MR. SCHOLL: Right, and knows her. THE COURT: And knows her and didn't particularly get along well with her. MR. SCHOLL: Right. ... MS. MCCLUSKEY: Anthony Bond talked to Mr. Carpenter on the phone last night, and Mr. Carpenter said he's apparently seen that woman before because one day when Mr. Carpenter was being dropped off at work or dropped off from work, Mr. Bond was there. And Mr. Carpenter was saying, That woman doesn't like me, and she saw me with you before. THE COURT: Well, that's  there's no mention, there again, of the witnesses during voir dire. There's nothing to suggest that this juror cannot be, has not been totally fair and impartial in this case, and so I'll note your statements for the record, but I don't think it has any bearing or effect, whatsoever, on this case. Defendant Thomas now claims that the trial court erred in failing to conduct a voir dire of this juror. Specifically, Thomas alleges that this juror should have been individually voir dired regarding her knowledge of the defense witness and her ability to be impartial. The State responds: first, the issue is waived because Defendant Thomas never requested that the juror be individually voir dired, see Tenn. R.App. P. 36(a); second, the issue is waived for failing to preserve the issue in the motion for new trial, see Tenn. R.App. P. 3(e); and third, the issue is waived for failing to make an offer of proof through the testimony of Russell Carpenter, see Tenn. R.App. P. 36(a); State v. Powers, 101 S.W.3d 383, 415 n. 5 (Tenn.2003). The State's position regarding waiver is well-taken. Additionally, Defendant Thomas, while stating general propositions of law regarding voir dire, fails to relate to this Court why the trial court's failure to individually voir dire this juror is error. See Tenn. R.App. P. 27(a)(7). Notwithstanding waiver, there is nothing in the record to indicate that the juror withheld information from the court regarding an alleged relationship with witness Carpenter. Moreover, the relationship remains just that, an allegation. Defendant Thomas failed to make an offer of proof supporting his allegation. This issue is without merit.