State v. Knight

3 Citing cases

  1. Smith v. State

    No. M2020-00559-CCA-R3-PC (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 21, 2021)   Cited 3 times

    Accordingly, he has not established prejudice from trial counsel's alleged deficiency. See State v. Harries, 657 S.W.2d 414, 419 (Tenn. 1983) (prospective juror's comment that she had heard on the news that the defendant used drugs and was a habitual criminal was not grounds for relief); Brown, 795 S.W.2d at 696 (the defendants failed to show that the actual jury was biased when a prospective juror indicated he had damaging information regarding the defendants from an acquaintance who was familiar with the crime); Michael Small, 2012 WL 1549832, at *8 (concluding that the defendant had failed to show that a potential juror's declaration that the defendant was "freaking [her] out" affected the impartiality of other jurors); State v. Christopher K. Knight, No. W2001-02995-CCA-R3-CD, 2003 WL 721701, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 27, 2003) (the jury pool was not tainted when a prospective juror revealed that he was acquainted with the defendant through his work on the disciplinary committee of a school where the defendant was a student); Reginald Merriweather, 2002 WL 1482742, at *8 (concluding that that the defendant had failed to show prejudice from a prospective juror's remark in front of the venire that he had met the defendant previously and could not be fair due to the circumstances under which they met). We conclude that the Petitioner is not entitled to relief on this issue.

  2. Bond v. State

    No. M2018-01324-CCA-R3-PC (Tenn. Crim. App. Sep. 19, 2019)

    A prior relationship with a witness or party does not automatically disqualify a juror. Hugueley, 185 S.W.3d 356, 379 (Tenn. 2006); see State v. Christopher K. Knight, No. W2001-02995-CCA-R3-CD, 2003 WL 721701, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 27, 2003) (concluding that a juror's casual acquaintance with the victim did not establish bias and that bias could not be presumed because relationship was not elicited during voir dire); Bowman v. State, 598 S.W.2d 809, 812 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1980) (concluding that a juror was not disqualified because there was no proof of bias or inherent prejudice despite an acknowledged social relationship with the Assistant District Attorney who was ultimately called as a rebuttal witness). In raising a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel with regard to failure to strike a biased juror, the petitioner must show that the juror was actually biased.

  3. State v. Smith

    No. M2014-00059-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 7, 2015)   Cited 2 times

    The court concluded that any presumption of prejudice was rebutted by the testimony that she did not know the defendant well or have any bias for or against him or his family. Id.; see also Tony Carruthers v. State, No. W2006-00376-CCA-R3-PD, 2007 WL 4355481, at *48 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 12, 2007) (concluding that a casual relationship between a juror and the defendant's mother was not inherently prejudicial); State v. Joseph Angel Silva, No. M2003-03063-CCA-R3-CD, 2005 WL 1252621, at *7 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 25, 2005) (concluding that presumption of prejudice was overcome because the evidence showed that the juror's relationship with the defendant's brother was that of casual acquaintance); State v. Christopher K. Knight, No. W2001-02995-CCA-R3-CD, 2003 WL 721701, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 27, 2003) (concluding that a juror's casual acquaintance with the victim did not establish bias and that bias could not be presumed because relationship was not elicited during voir dire); State v. Curtis Cecil Wayne Bolton, No. 03C01-9707-CR-00255, 1999 WL 93107, at *16 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 25, 1999) (holding that the presumption of bias which arose when a juror did not reveal that he and the prosecutor had been roommates in college was rebutted by evidence that their relationship had been "casual at best" since that time and by failure to show that the relationship affected the outcome); State v. Gayle T. Parsons, Jr., No. 01C01-9607-CC-00311, 1997 WL 766465, at *5 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 12, 1997) (holding that a presumption of bias on the part of a juror who had not revealed that she had been a victim of a similar crime was rebutted by evidence that the juror had not exposed other jurors to extraneous information and that she had been one of three jurors who initially voted to acquit the d