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
See Tenn. R. App. P. 36(a) ("Nothing in this rule shall be construed as requiring relief be granted to a party responsible for an error or who failed to take whatever action was reasonably available to prevent or nullify the harmful effect of an error."); Joseph Angel Silva, III, No. M2003-03063-CCA-R3-CD, 2005 WL 1252621, at *10 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, May 25, 2005), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Oct. 17, 2005) ("Any error which resulted from the State's oversight in not providing the Defendant with the physical description of the attacker could have been cured by the Defendant."); State v. Timmy Fulton, No. 02C01-9706-CC-00223, 1998 WL 188532, at *4 (Tenn.
See State v. Taylor, 669 S.W.2d 694, 699 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1983) (holding that "the alleged relationship of jurors to people connected with law enforcement, even if true, does not give rise to an inherently prejudicial situation in and of itself"); State v. Joseph Angel Silva, III, No. M2003-03063-CCA-R3-CD, 2005 WL 1252621, at *6 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 25, 2005) ("Tennessee courts have routinely refused relief in post-verdict propter affectum challenges in cases where there was a casual relationship not disclosed during voir dire or the record failed to reveal an inherently prejudicial relationship or a false answer."); State v. Sammy D. Childers, No. W2002-00006-CCA-R3-CD, 2003 WL 214444, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 30, 2003) (concluding that the defendant failed to establish any bias or partiality by the juror when the evidence showed that the juror did not have a "close acquaintanceship" with the victim).
Finally, "Tennessee courts have routinely refused relief in post-verdict propter affectum challenges in cases where there was a casual relationship not disclosed during voir dire or the record failed to reveal an inherently prejudicial relationship or a false answer." State v. Joseph Angel Silva, III, No. M2003-03063-CCA-R3-CD, 2005 WL 1252621 (Tenn. Crim. App., May 25, 2005), perm.app. denied, (Tenn. Oct. 17, 2005) (internal citations omitted); State v. Sammy D. Childers, No. W2002-00006-CCA-R3-CD, 2003 WL 214444 (Tenn.
This court noted that "'Tennessee courts have routinely refused relief in post-verdict propter affectum challenges in cases where there was a casual relationship not disclosed during voir dire or the record failed to reveal an inherently prejudicial relationship or a false answer.'" Id. (quoting State v. Joseph Angel Silva, III, No. M2003-03063-CCA-R3-CD, 2005 WL 1252621 (Tenn. Crim. App., May 25, 2005), perm. to app. denied, (Tenn. Oct. 17, 2005)) (emphasis added). In Silva, one of the jurors was the aunt of the former girlfriend of the defendant's brother.
Rule 26.2(e) sanctions do not apply when "the other party" is not ordered to produce the statements. State v. Joseph Angel Silva, III, No. M2003-03063-CCA-R3-CD, 2005 Tenn.Crim.App. LEXIS 519, at *27 (Tenn.Crim.App. at Nashville, May 25, 2005). Here, the State was not ordered to produce the tape recording.
The fact that a juror knows a family member of a defendant fails, by itself, to establish bias or partiality. As this court has recognized in a similar case, "Tennessee courts have routinely refused relief in post-verdict propter affectum challenges in cases where there was a casual relationship not disclosed during voir dire or the record failed to reveal an inherently prejudicial relationship or a false answer." State v. Joseph Angel Silva, III, No. M2003-03063-CCA-R3-CD, 2005 WL 1252621, at *6 (Tenn.Crim.App. May 25, 2005), perm. to appeal denied (Tenn. Oct. 17, 2005) (citations omitted).