State v. Sparks

15 Citing cases

  1. State v. Foust

    No. E2024-00346-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 14, 2025)

    , no perm. app. filed. "Ferguson simply does not apply to evidence that never existed," and "'this court has repeatedly refused to grant Ferguson relief when there was no proof that the alleged evidence existed.'" Id. (quoting State v. Sparks, No. M2005-02436-CCA-R3-CD, 2006 WL 2242236, at *5 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 4, 2006)); see State v. Morton, No. E2019-01755-CCA-R3-CD, 2022 WL 2301439, at *33 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 27, 2002), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Nov. 16, 2022).

  2. State v. Jones

    No. M2022-01620-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 25, 2024)

    State v. Sparks, No. M2005-02436-CCA-R3-CD, 2006 WL 2242236, at *5 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 4, 2006) (citations omitted), no perm. app. filed; see also State v. Morton, No. E2019-01755-CCA-R3-CD, 2022 WL 2301439, at *33 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 27, 2022), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Nov. 16, 2022).

  3. State v. Shaffighi

    No. E2022-00525-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 15, 2023)

    "On the contrary, this court has repeatedly refused to grant Ferguson relief when there was no proof that the alleged evidence existed." State v. Sparks, No. M2005-02436-CCA-R3-CD, 2006 WL 2242236, at *5 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 4, 2006) (citing cases), no perm. app. filed; State v. Morton, No. E2019-01755-CCA-R3-CD, 2022 WL 2301439, at *33 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 27, 2022), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Nov. 16, 2022).

  4. State v. Morton

    No. E2019-01755-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Jun. 27, 2022)   Cited 5 times

    At the pretrial hearings, the Appellant failed to establish that any recordings did, in fact, exist. "[T]his court has repeatedly refused to grant Ferguson relief when there was no proof that the alleged evidence existed." State v. Randall S. Sparks, No. M2005-02436-CCA-R3-CD, 2006 WL 2242236, at*5 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 4, 2006). Assuming arguendo that the recordings did exist, the Appellant failed to establish that the recordings contained any potentially exculpatory information.

  5. State v. Jordan

    No. W2019-01230-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. May. 8, 2020)

    Our appellate courts have not required a new trial under similar fact patterns when a defendant has claimed juror bias. State v. Robinson, 146 S.W.3d 469, 522-523 (Tenn. 2004) (finding no "nexus" between defendant and juror who was a deputy jailer and assigned to the defendant's pod for three hours); Willie Calvin Taylor, Jr., 2012 WL 2308088, at *8; State v. Nelson Troglin, No. E2005-02015-CCA-R3-CD, 2006 WL 2633107, at *20 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 14, 2006) (juror, who negligently responded incorrectly at voir dire, was aware of defendant's conviction for a prior homicide, although jury as a whole was only informed of defendant's indictment for the homicide; a new trial was not granted because "all the jurors knew information similar to what [he] knew about the [d]efendant" and "such exposure did not prejudice the [d]efendant's case"), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Jan. 29, 2007); State v. Randall S. Sparks, No. M2005-02436-CCA-R3-CD, 2006 WL 2242236 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 4, 2006) (juror was the defendant and his mother's former landlord, but did not recognize him during voir dire and had only a passing acquaintance with him, although she was involved in a dispute over the deposit with the defendant's mother), no perm. app. filed. Here, we cannot say that one juror's understanding of her prior working relationship with Defendant's mother fatally tainted the jury's verdict.

  6. State v. Martin

    No. W2017-01610-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Sep. 28, 2018)   Cited 4 times

    The trial court concluded that Ferguson was not applicable because the second photographic lineup did not exist. In State v. Randall S. Sparks, this court held that the State had no duty to preserve recordings of drug transactions because the recordings did not exist. No. M2005-02436-CCA-R3-CD, 2006 WL 2242236, at *5 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 4, 2006). The Sparks court reasoned, "[W]e can find no case law in this state that indicates that Ferguson applies to evidence that never existed.

  7. State v. Moore

    No. E2015-00942-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Sep. 20, 2016)

    Crim. App. Mar. 25, 2014), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Aug. 26, 2014) (noting that Ferguson "does not require the creation of evidence"); State v. Randall S. Sparks, No. M2005-02436-CCA-R3-CD, 2006 WL 2242236, at *5 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 4, 2006) ("[W]e can find no case law in this state that indicates that Ferguson applies to evidence that never existed."); see alsoMerriman, 410 S.W.3d at 794 (concluding that "[t]he State had no duty to create a video recording of Ms. Merriman's traffic stop" and that only after the recording was made did it become part of the State's evidence). Because the State did not have a duty to create this evidence by recording the entirety of the interview, the defendant is not entitled to relief. CONCLUSION

  8. State v. Smith

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

    In State v. Sparks, one of the jurors became aware during trial that the defendant's mother had lived in an apartment complex which she managed, and she had a "passing acquaintance" with the defendant. State v. Randall S. Sparks, No. M2005-02436-CCA-R3-CD, 2006 WL 2242236, at *7 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 4, 2006). 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.

  9. State v. Dodd

    No. M2011-02259-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. May. 23, 2013)   Cited 4 times

    Crim. App. at Knoxville, Apr. 30, 2007), perm. to appeal denied, (Tenn. 2007) (holding with regard to the absence of a recording of the traffic stop that the "State cannot destroy evidence that does not exist"); State v. Randall S. Sparks, No. M2005-02436-CCA-R3-CD, 2006 WL 2242236, at *5 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, Aug. 4, 2006) (holding that State had no duty to preserve recordings of drug transactions because recordings did not exist); see also John Darryl Williams-Bey v. State, No. M2005-00709-CCA-R3-PC, 2006 WL 2242263, at *7 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, Aug. 4, 2006) (affirming post-conviction court's finding that counsel was not ineffective for failing to seek non-existent fingerprint evidence or curative jury instruction therefor).

  10. Rollins v. State

    No. E2010-01150-CCA-R3-PD (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 31, 2012)   Cited 4 times
    Concluding that the State failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice that arose when a juror did not reveal a friendship with the victim

    Id. at **28-29. In State v. Randall S. Sparks, No. M2005-02436-CCA-R3-CD, 2006 WL 2242236 (Tenn. Crim. App., Aug. 4, 2006), the defendant claimed in his motion for new trial that one of the trial jurors was biased because she failed to reveal during voir dire that she knew the defendant and members of his family. It is unclear from the opinion what questions were asked prospective jurors during voir dire, but the opinion reflects that the defendant was identified by name and asked to stand up in front of the jurors.