ÿWPCV$ ·YîO '@Û-BÛ^³îþZ^Pâ΂‚ô‡ÊdÊëè×DÅYG« xâhm‰¶øWÏ4ÜÔâeüúoX}™t À¼IÁî‚kxúÚ°me ¸ß„¢ÒK¶b—Õ…k¶ýÉÆë0Qå«õرmZÑf9‰ÕéMkXñ ˆq¥‘˜«¢6l%Ô}yé ù÷ª{aT£õdúF*©‡FÉ>Áà‹`Ç—4%‚"PÖÁ¼ô÷Á&B%à­¡à%b %\^ b 0ˆnU"NöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÉÐ Ð Æ™ Æ_ Æ%Æë 0D±Nõ¤÷UN›EéëyüüÖuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuubKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 0ëSSSS B> > 0¤[ D3ÿ D-2! 0K_!_! ASª!Æý! 0¤Ã" 0Dg# A««#» …—/Ï (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularlz/ê:i¢Ø+003|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜\\IB01S01\CLERK4NASÒV,,,,ÒV0Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó PAMPLINMcCownRandlesShelbyvilleOficerpropteraffectumToombs t]hetriers WittHumphreys CrimKilburn JurPenderMcCordBallardMatheny RadiTernesHutcheson(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular Ý ƒR80$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôêÌò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔTennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€22„3„102€provides€that€a€prospective€juror€may€be€challenged€for€causeÐ ° Ðð ðwho€is€incompetent€to€act€as€a€juror€under€the€provisions€of€chapter€1€of€this€act.ðð€€Chapter€1€defines€those€persons€whoÐ qÁ Ðdo€not€have€the€qualifications€required€by€the€statutes€governing€jury€service.€€òòSee€alsoóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€24(b). oÝ ƒR80$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôêÌò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€This€appears€to€be€the€majority€rule.€€òòSee€óó47€AÔ‡:¬òôêÌÔM.€Ô#†ôêÌò:¬´#ÔJÔ‡:¬òôêÌÔUR.€Ô#†ôêÌò:¬ú#Ô2Ô‡:¬òôêÌÔD€Ô#†ôêÌò:¬A#ÔòòJuryóó€ðð€176€(1995);€sòòee€also€óó€òòUnited€States€v.€McCordóó,Ð ° Ð695€F.2d€823€(5òòthóó€Cir.€1983);€òòFordham€v.€Stateóó,€513€So.2d€31(Ala.€App.€1986);€òòState€v.€Hillóó,€174€Ariz.€313€(Ariz.€1993);Ð qÁ ÐòòState€v.€Ballardóó,€747€So.2d€1077€(La.€1999);€òòState€v.€Mathenyóó,€860€S.W.2d€837€(Mo.€Ct.€App.€1993);€òòState€v.€Radióó,€578Ð 2‚ ÐP.2d€1169€(Mont.€1978);€òòState€v.€Ternesóó,€259€N.W.2d€296€(N.D.€1977).€€However,€some€states€strictly€preclude€lawÐ óC Ðenforcement€officers€from€serving€on€juries.€€òòSee€State€v.€Cooperóó,€353€S.E.2d€441€(S.C.€1986);òòóó€òòState€v.€Kingóó,€396€S.E.2dÐ ´ Ð402€(W.€Va.€1990).€€Other€jurisdictions€allow€officers€to€serve€but€provide€that€they€must€or€should€be€stricken€for€causeÐ uÅ Ðif€an€objection€is€made.€€òòHutcheson€v.€Stateóó,€268€S.E.2d€643€(Ga.€1980);€òòState€v.€Reynoldsóó,€592€A.2d€194€(N.J.€1991).€Ð 6 † Ð ÌÝ ƒR80$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôêÌò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€this€regard,€the€State€argues€that,€because€the€Appellant€failed€to€follow€the€proper€selection€procedures,Ð ° Ðhe€cannot€now€challenge€the€jurorsðð€qualifications€on€appeal.€€The€State€contends€that€Rule€24(c),Tennessee€Rules€ofÐ qÁ ÐCriminal€Procedure,€requires,€ð ðAfter€prospective€jurors€have€been€passed€for€cause,€counsel€will€submit€simultaneouslyÐ 2‚ Ðand€in€writing€to€the€trial€judge,€the€name€of€any€juror€in€the€group€of€the€first€twelve€who€have€been€seated€that€eitherÐ óC Ðcounsel€elects€to€challenge€peremptorily.ðð€€Because€Juror€Barrett€was€initially€passed€for€cause€in€the€first€round,€theÐ ´ ÐState€asserts€that€any€future€challenges€for€cause€are€foreclosed.€€We€disagree.€€As€is€permitted€with€a€peremptoryÐ uÅ Ðchallenge,€we€find€nothing€in€the€rule€which€would€preclude€a€challenge€for€cause€at€any€time€prior€to€a€€full€jury€beingÐ 6 † Ðselected€and€accepted€by€counsel.€€òòId.óó€€Because€the€Appellant€had€exhausted€all€of€his€peremptory€challenges€and€hisÐ ÷ G Ðchallenge€against€Juror€Barrett€was€denied,€his€claim€that€he€was€denied€the€right€to€trial€before€an€impartial€jury€is€notÐ ¸  Ðprocedurally€barred.€€òòSee€State€v.€Kilburnóó,€782€S.W.2d€199,€202€(Ten.€Crim.€App.€1989).- ù-(|G280$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€˱»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôêÌò»»Ô d(|3ö"$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€˱»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ö"$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€˱»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€˱»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼˱»»»ÔÑ8€œ×XXdé»»d8Ñà@hhìàÔ‡î">˱ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@gg$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼˱»îî"> #ԈРÓ# ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAugust€12,€2003€SessionÐ öF ÐÔ‡Xœ×X»¼˱ÔÌò òÔ#†¼˱»XXœ×#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€BENTON€WILLIAM€PAMPLINòòóóÔ‡Xœ×X»¼˱Ôó óÐ ï? ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Bedford€CountyÐ é 9 Ðà@@øøìàNo.€14880€€€€€€Lee€Russell,€JudgeÐ Ó # ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<` AßÐ ‘á  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€€M2002„00408„CCA„R3„CDÔ#†¼˱»XXœ×“#ÔÔ‡Xœ×X»¼˱Ô€„€Filed€December€23,€Ô_Ô2003Ô_ÔÐ ŠÚ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<]` AßÐ ^®  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€Appellant,€Benton€William€Pamplin,€was€convicted€by€a€Bedford€County€jury€of€simple€assaultÐ V¦  Ðand€resisting€arrest.€€On€appeal,€Pamplin€presents€two€issues€for€our€review:€(1)€whether€the€trialÐ ? Ðcourt€committed€reversible€error€by€refusing€to€strike,€for€cause,€a€prospective€juror€who€was€aÐ (x Ðuniformed€deputy€sheriff€and€whose€office€presented€testimony€at€the€trial,€and€(2)€whether€theÐ a Ðevidence€was€sufficient€to€sustain€the€verdicts.€€After€review,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€courtððsÐ úJ Ðrefusal€to€strike€the€prospective€juror€constituted€reversible€error€in€that€it€denied€Pamplin€his€rightÐ ã3 Ðto€a€fair€and€impartial€jury.€€Accordingly,€the€judgments€of€conviction€are€reversed€and€the€case€isÐ Ì Ðremanded€for€a€new€trial.€Ð µ ÐÌÓñÓò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Reversed€and€Remanded€for€New€Trial.ó óÐ ‡× ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼˱»àXœ×(#ÔÔ‡Xœ×X.¼˱ÔDavid€G.€Hayes,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòGary€R.€Wade,€P.€J.,óó€and€òòJerryÐ Zª ÐL.€Smithóó,€J.,€joined.Ð C“ ÐÌMatt€Q.€Bastian,€Columbia,€Tennessee,€on€appeal,€for€the€Appellant,€Benton€William€Pamplin.Ð e ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Michael€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€Kim€R.Ð ç 7  ÐHelper,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€William€Michael€McCown,€District€Attorney€General;€andÐ Ð! ! ÐMichael€Randles,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð ¹" " ÐÔ#†¼˱»XXœ×& #ÔÔ‡Xœ×X»¼˱ÔÌÓ÷ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼˱»XXœ×Ó #ÔÔ‡Xœ×X»¼˱ÔÐ t%Ä % ÐÌò òFactual€Backgroundó óÐ G'—"' ÐòòóóÔ#†¼˱»XXœ×F #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€Xœ×X»¼˱ÔÌÌà  àThe€Appellantððs€actions,€which€resulted€in€his€being€indicted€€for€assault€and€resisting€arrest,Ð *S%* Ðarose€from€a€partition€suit.€€The€property€to€be€partitioned€was€jointly€owned€by€the€Appellantððs€twoÐ ì*<&+ Ðsisters€and€consisted€of€a€house€and€lot€in€Shelbyville.€€Because€the€property€was€scheduled€for€sale,Ð Õ+%', Ðthe€Appellant€and€other€family€members€had€begun€moving€items€of€personal€property€from€theÐ ¾,(- Ðpremises.€€On€July€15,€2000,€€Shelbyville€Police€Officer€Eric€Ely,€acting€upon€a€complaint,€appearedÐ §-÷(.ý ÐÔ_Ôat€the€property€address€and€advised€all€family€members€present€that€no€one€was€to€enter€theÐ ° Ðresidence.€€On€Officer€Elyððs€third€visit€to€the€property,€he€was€advised€by€the€cleaning€crew€that€theÐ ™é ÐAppellant€and€other€family€members€had€returned€to€the€property€and€were€carrying€away€variousÐ ‚Ò Ðitems.€€At€this€point,€Officer€Ely€walked€over€to€the€Appellantððs€residence,€which€was€nearby,€andÐ k» Ðan€argument€quickly€ensued€between€the€two.€€Officer€Ely€ordered€the€Appellant€to€go€inside€hisÐ T¤ Ðresidence,€when,€according€to€Officer€Ely,€the€Appellant€ð ðtook€a€swipe€at€my€face€at€that€time,€thatÐ =  Ðwas€assault,€and€I€went€to€place€him€under€arrest.€€He€resisted€.€.€.€.ðð€Ð & v ÐÌà  àThe€trial€began€on€October€9,€2001.€€During€voir€dire,€the€jury€panel€was€informed€thatÐ ø H ÐBedford€County€Sheriff€Clay€Parker€would€appear€before€the€jury€and€read€into€evidence€aÐ á 1  Ðð ðstipulated€statement/depositionðð€of€Deputy€Jimmy€Parker,€as€the€latter€Parker€was€out€of€town.€Ð Ê   ÐDeputy€Parker,€who€was€a€captain€with€the€Sheriffððs€Department,€had€responded€to€one€of€the€callsÐ ³  Ðat€the€residence€and€had€assumed€an€active€role€in€the€case.€€After€voir€dire€of€the€prospective€jurorsÐ œì  Ðhad€concluded,€defense€counsel€submitted€three€peremptory€challenges€in€the€first€round.€€At€aÐ …Õ  Ðsubsequent€bench€conference,€defense€counsel€informed€the€court€that€he€had€mistakenly€believedÐ n¾  Ðthat€he€had€five€peremptory€challenges.€€Upon€being€advised€by€the€trial€court€that€he€had€used€allÐ W§  Ðhis€peremptory€challenges,€defense€counsel€then€challenged,€for€cause,€prospective€juror,€TonyÐ @ ÐBarrett,€a€Bedford€County€Deputy€Sheriff.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð )y ÐÌà  àVoir€dire€examination€established€that€Juror€Barrett€was€currently€employed€as€a€BedfordÐ ûK ÐCounty€Deputy€Sheriff€and€had€previously€served€as€a€judicial€commissioner€for€eight€years.€€BarrettÐ ä4 Ðacknowledged€that€he€knew€the€Appellant€and€Officer€Eric€Ely.€€€Barrett€also€acknowledged€that€hisÐ Í Ðð ðsister„in„law€works€for€the€DA.ðð€€Finally,€in€addition€to€Juror€Barrett€being€a€subordinate€employeeÐ ¶ Ðof€a€prosecuting€witness,€the€record€reflects€that€Barrett€reported€for€jury€duty€in€full€deputy€sheriffÐ Ÿï Ðuniform,€including€badge€and€sidearm.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àNotwithstanding€the€above€facts,€the€trial€court€refused€to€strike€Barrett€for€cause,€findingÐ Zª Ðthat€ð ðboth€sides€kept€himðð€and€that€nothing€precludes€a€law€enforcement€officer€from€serving€on€aÐ C“ Ðjury.€€After€the€jury€was€sworn,€Juror€Barrett€was€elected€foreman.€€Following€the€juryððs€verdicts,Ð ,| Ðthe€Appellant€received€an€eleven€months,€twenty„nine„day€sentence€for€the€assault€and€a€six„monthÐ e Ðsentence€for€resisting€arrest,€with€service€of€one€hundred€twenty€days€in€the€county€jail.Ð þN ÐÌÌà@ôô&ìàò òANALYSISó óˆÐ ¹" ! ЇÔ‡X·ã XXXœ×Ôà  àBoth€Article€1,€Section€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€and€the€Sixth€Amendment€to€theÐ ° ÐUnited€States€Constitution€guarantee€an€accused€in€a€criminal€prosecution€the€right€to€a€trial€by€anÐ ™é Ðimpartial€jury.€€Moreover,€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€22„1„105€provides€that:Ð ‚Ò ÐÌà8  àDisqualification€by€interest€or€relationship.€„€No€person€can€act€as€a€juror€in€any€caseÐ T¤ Ðin€which€the€person€is€interested,€or€when€either€of€the€parties€is€connected€with€theÐ =  Ðperson€by€affinity€or€consanguinity,€within€the€sixth€degree,€computing€by€the€civilÐ & v Ðlaw,€except€by€consent€of€all€the€parties.Ð _Ð Ð  ÐÌThis€provision€has€been€interpreted€to€mean€that€every€defendant€is€guaranteed€ð ða€trial€by€a€jury€free€Ð á 1  Ðof€a€disqualification€propter€affectum;€that€is,€a€disqualification€on€account€of€some€bias€or€partialityÐ Ê   Ðtoward€one€side€or€the€other€of€the€litigation.ðð€€òòToombs€v.€Stateóó,€270€S.W.2d€649,€650€(Tenn.€1954).€Ð ³  ÐThe€process€of€voir€dire€allows€not€only€the€trial€court€but€also€the€parties€an€opportunity€to€ensureÐ œì  Ðthat€ð ðjurors€are€competent,€unbiased,€and€impartial.ðð€€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€868€S.W.2d€238,€247€(Tenn.Ð …Õ  Ð1993).€€In€particular,€ð ð[t]he€right€of€challenge€for€cause€was€designed€to€exclude€from€the€jury€triersÐ n¾  Ðwhose€bias€or€prejudice€rendered€them€unfit,€and€peremptory€challenge€was€intended€to€excludeÐ W§  Ðthose€suspected€of€bias€or€prejudice.ðð€€òòManning€v.€Stateóó,€292€S.W.2d€451,€455€(Tenn.€1927).€€Ð @ ÐÌà  àIn€assessing€a€jurorððs€impartiality€following€a€challenge€for€cause,€the€trial€court€shouldÐ b Ðinquire€ð ðwhether€the€jurorððs€views€would€ððprevent€or€substantially€impair€the€performance€of€hisÐ ûK Ðduties€as€a€juror€in€accordance€with€his€instructions€and€his€oath.ðððð€€òòWainwright€v.€Wittóó,€469€U.S.Ð ä4 Ð412,€424,€105€S.€Ct.€844,€852€(1985);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Harold€W.€Humphreysóó,€70€S.W.3d€752,€765Ð Í Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€2001).Ð ¶ ÐÌà  àA€determination€of€the€qualifications€of€a€juror€rests€within€the€discretion€of€the€trial€courtÐ ˆØ Ðand€will€not€be€overturned€absent€a€showing€of€an€abuse€of€that€discretion.€òòState€v.€Kilburnóó,€782Ð qÁ ÐS.W.2d€199,€203€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989).€€Indeed,€our€supreme€court€has€observed€that€a€trialÐ Zª Ðcourtððs€findings€of€impartiality€may€be€overturned€only€for€ð ðmanifest€error.ðð€€òòHowellóó,€868€S.W.2dÐ C“ Ðat€248.Ð ,| ÐÌà  àWith€regard€to€a€prospective€juror€who€is€not€otherwise€disqualified€to€serve,׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€there€are€twoÐ þN Ðsituations€where€a€challenge€for€cause€should€be€sustained.€€The€first€is€where€the€prospective€jurorÐ ç 7 Ðindicates€by€his€or€her€answer€that€they€cannot€or€will€not€be€a€fair€or€impartial€juror.€€The€secondÐ Ð!   Ðis€where,€irrespective€of€the€answers€given€on€voir€dire,€the€trial€court€should€presume€the€likelihoodÐ ¹" ! Ðof€prejudice€on€the€part€of€the€prospective€juror€because€the€potential€juror€has€such€a€closeÐ ¢#ò" Ðrelationship,€be€it€familial,€financial,€or€situational,€with€any€of€the€parties,€counsel,€victims,€orÐ ‹$Û# Ðwitnesses.€€òòSee€generally,óó€47€òòAm€Juróó€2d,€òòJuryóó€ðð€266„94€(1995).€€As€observed€by€the€trial€judge€inÐ t%Ä $ Ðâ âthis€case,€no€Tennessee€case€or€statute€requires€that€a€law€enforcement€officer€be€automaticallyÐ ]&­!% Ðexcluded€from€a€jury.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Penderóó,€687€S.W.2d€714,€718€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984)€(holdingÐ ° Ðâ âthat€the€jurorððs€status€as€a€police€officer,€standing€alone,€did€not€lead€to€the€conclusion€that€he€wasÐ ™é Ðbiased€or€prejudiced).€€However,€Juror€Barrettððs€professional€relationship€and€interest€in€the€case€wasÐ ‚Ò Ðentirely€too€close€to€that€of€Captain€Parker€and€Officer€Ely.€€Not€only€was€Barrett€a€member€of€theÐ k» Ðsame€law€enforcement€agency€as€was€Captain€Parker,€he€was€also€a€subordinate€employee€of€Parker.€Ð T¤ ÐMoreover,€the€nature€of€the€case€involved€an€assault€upon€a€law€enforcement€officer.€€In€addition,Ð =  ÐJuror€Barrett€was€personally€acquainted€with€Eric€Ely,€the€prosecuting€witness,€who€was€a€policeÐ & v Ðofficer€and€victim€of€the€offenses.€€€Finally,€we€note€that€the€juror€served€on€the€jury€as€its€foremanÐ  _ Ðwhile€in€full€uniform€and€with€sidearm.€€With€regard€to€this€fact,€we€are€constrained€to€hold€that€thisÐ ø H Ðpractice€should€clearly€be€avoided,€as€the€presence€of€a€uniformed€officer€on€the€jury€presents€theÐ á 1  Ðappearance€of€authority€and€undermines€the€concept€of€impartiality.€€We€are€reminded€that€the€juryÐ Ê   Ðselection€process€should€endeavor€to€select€jurors€who€are€not€only€fair€and€impartial€but€are€alsoÐ ³  Ðfree€from€the€suspicion€of€impartiality.€€Ð œì  ÐÌà@GG%ìàò òCONCLUSIONó óˆÐ n¾  ÐÌà  àBased€upon€the€foregoing,€we€conclude€that€manifest€error€exists€and€that€the€AppellantððsÐ A‘ Ðchallenge€of€Juror€Barrett€for€cause€should€have€been€sustained.€€In€view€of€our€conclusion€that€theÐ *z ЀAppellant€was€denied€his€right€to€a€fair€and€impartial€jury,€the€judgments€of€conviction€are€reversedÐ c Ðand€this€case€is€remanded€for€a€new€trial.€€Ð üL ÐÔ#†Xœ×X XX·ã‘#ÔÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð r Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGE