Knight v. State, CR-93-1974

• Decision Date: 07 July 1995
• Docket Number: CR-93-1974
• Citation: 675 So.2d 487
• Parties: Darwin Gregory KNIGHT v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals

Page 487

675 So.2d 487

Darwin Gregory KNIGHT v.STATE.

CR-93-1974.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

July 7, 1995.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 9, 1995.

Arthur Clarke, Mobile, for Appellant.

Jeff Sessions, Atty. Gen., and David Bjurberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for Appellee.

TAYLOR, Presiding Judge.

The appellant, Darwin Gregory Knight, was convicted of two counts of murder made capital because the murder occurred during the course of robbing the victim of his automobile and attempting to rob him of the money in his wallet.See§ 13A-5-40(a)(2),Code of Alabama 1975.The jury unanimously recommended death.The trial court accepted the jury's recommendation and sentenced the appellant to death by electrocution.

I

The appellant contends that the trial court erred in not granting his motion for a mistrial when it was discovered that one of the jurors failed to disclose information on voir dire.Specifically, he contends that he was prejudiced when one of the jurors failed to disclose his acquaintance with Clayton Knight, the appellant's brother and a defense witness, and also, when he failed to disclose that he knew the appellant or the fact that his wife had previously had a love affair with the appellant.

The record reveals that after the guilt phase of the proceedings and on the first day of the penalty phase, the bailiff reported to the trial court that this juror's wife approached him and told him that she had had an affair with the appellant.The court stated the following:

"The Court: We have a juror, ... number 89.[His] wife has been following the course of this trial with great interest.It turns out apparently one reason she is so interested in the trial is she tells Bailiff Bob that she in the past had an affair with Mr. Knight [the defendant] and she apparently or her conscience got to hurting her about it and she figured she had to tell somebody.So, she told Bailiff Bob.Bailiff Bob asked her to be available this morning.Well, she was here earlier this morning.He said I might want to talk with her about it and see if it would have any bearing on the case and Bailiff Bob told her to stay here at court.She isn't here at court any longer.Apparently, she has disappeared.I think she disappeared because he told her I couldn't talk with her in absolute privacy, that I would have to talk with her in the presence of counsel for both sides and the defendant and I think that may have spooked her.

"....

"That could be a dangerous situation.Well, you don't have to say a great deal more.If [the juror] did not answer accurately the questions that we asked him about his acquaintances or lack of acquaintances, if he didn't answer those questions accurately, he shouldn't be on this jury.I suppose we--from this point on, of course, it is a simple enough thing because we have got a couple of alternates.I suppose there is the issue of how it affects the verdict that is already in.For that purpose we would have to question [the juror] and find out whether he--now, I know he is mostly blind.He may be not much brighter--he may not be very acute.So, he may not have picked up on it.I guess we just have to see."

The court then proceeded to question the juror about Clayton Knight and the appellant.It was then also discovered that Clayton Knight was currently dating the juror's sister-in-law.(For a better understanding of the facts surrounding the case, we will provide excerpts of the court's discussions with several of the parties.)The following discussion occurred:

"The Court: Come up and have a seat....[D]o do you know Clayton Knight.

"Juror: Well, I know him.I have seen him twice.He goes with my wife's sister.

"The Court: He goes with your wife's sister?

"Juror: Uh-huh.

"The Court: How long has he been doing that?

"Juror: Well, I don't really know, Your Honor.I just knowed them recently that they started together.

"The Court: How did you get to know him?

"Juror: Well, I got to know him over at my mother-in-law's and he came by my house about once that I knows of.

"The Court: When did he come by your house?

"Juror: It was about three weeks ago, I think.

"The Court: About three weeks ago?

"Juror: Yes, sir.

"The Court: And did he sit and visit with you a little bit?

"Juror: Well, my sister-in-law came in and we sat out on the front and talked while she was inside with her sister?

"The Court: You mean you and Clayton sat out front?

"....

"The Court: I asked about Cleveland Knight also....When I asked you about all those people, how come you didn't tell us you knew Clayton Knight?

"Juror: I didn't even know none of the Knights.Clayton is the only one I have met.

"The Court: I asked you whether you knew Clayton Knight.Why didn't you tell me that?

"Juror: Well, I didn't hear you, Judge.

"The Court: You didn't hear me?

"Juror: No, sir; honestly.Well, see, at the time you were Clayton, really I hadn't met Clayton but once or twice.As far as me, he was at a distance, not just an every day thing, you know.It wasn't an every day thing.It was just here and there.

"....

"The Court: How did your wife get to know Darwin?

"Juror: I don't know Your Honor.

"The Court: But she--

"Juror: She knew him.I don't know how.But I didn't know none of them but one.

"....

"The Court: I understand....But you know that she knows Darwin Knight, really?

"Juror: Well, she said she did.

"The Court: I see.When did she say she knew Darwin Knight?

"Juror: She had told me that she knew him, I think, one day week before last or last week or one day since then.

"The Court: Maybe this week?Did she mention it to you this week?

"Juror: Well, she mentioned it this week or one day--I think it was Monday or Tuesday.She said, 'I know him.'I said 'I don't.'I don't know nothing about the man.I don't even know anything about his family.All I know is when I seen him once or twice.Like I said, we both went our different directions.When I do see him, he is over to my mother-in-law's.

"....

"Juror: Well, the conversation came up because the simple reason she[juror's wife] felt like--She said, 'Well, I hope you don't get on the jury because I know Clayton and I know Clayton's brother.'I said, 'All I have got--I don't know who you are talking about, you know.'I said, 'I don't even know the man.'She said, 'I know you don't know him, but I know him.'So, all I could say, you know,--

"....

"The Court: Now, when I asked you whether you ever heard of Darwin Knight, how come you didn't say, yeah, I have heard of him.My wife and I were talking about him--

"Juror: Your Honor, what I am saying is this: Okay.When you say, have you heard--I never have heard the name of Darwin Knight.I have heard the name of Clayton, but not Darwin Knight.Even with my wife--I don't lager (sic) with names too long.If you tell me something at the time I hold it for a little while.After that it is erased.Now, if you continued to ask me about something, if I remember, I will tell you that I remember."

The court then questioned the juror's wife about her relationship with the appellant and any conversations she had had with the juror about the appellant and the trial.The wife stated the following:

"The Court: Now, ... how long have you known Darwin Knight?

"[Juror's wife]: How long?

"The Court: Yes, ma'am.

"[Juror's wife]: I don't know how long.It has been a while.

"The Court: Been since 1980, you have been knowing him that long?

"[Juror's wife]: Could have.I could have.

"....

"The Court: Great.Okay.And you and he[the appellant] have been sweethearts for a while; is that right?

"[Juror's wife]: Sure.Yes, sir.

"....

"The Court: Now, then, when--Tell us about the conversation you had with your husband about his being on the jury in this case.Tell us about that, when did it happen?

"[Juror's wife]: When did it happen?

"The Court: Yes, ma'am.

"[Juror's wife]: About this case here?

"The Court: Yes, ma'am.

"....

"The Court: ...[W]e know there was a conversation.We have just finished talking with your husband.I would like for you to tell us about it?

"[Juror's wife]: What kind of conversation?"

The juror and his wife gave ambiguous and vague answers when questioned by the court.His wife refused to disclose the facts surrounding her conversation with her husband about the appellant's trial.

After the wife was questioned by the court, Clayton Knight told the court that he had met the juror on several occasions at the juror's mother-in-law's house.

The appellant was also questioned by the court.He told the court that he did not know that the juror was married to the woman with whom he had had an affair.He also stated that the woman had been in the courtroom but that he thought that she was present to provide him moral support.

The following occurred after the court talked with all of the people involved:

"The Court: Well, here is my situation.I know I could try to protect the record and say, I thought [the juror] was stupid, but, unfortunately, I just think he is dishonest and I think his wife is dishonest.And I conclude from the evidence that he knew Darwin Knight or knew of Darwin Knight when we asked the question, 'Have you heard of these people,' and he didn't answer that question.But then I have got to try to figure out--and I am well aware of the law which says, the defendant is entitled to a jury composed of people who accurately answer the questions put to them and certainly that was a crucial question.The next thing I have got to try to figure out is whether the defendant is barred by latches or some theory from raising the point.Because certainly if the defendant had raised it before the jury started deliberating, it wouldn't have been any problem at all.It wouldn't have been anything to it.I just would have taken [the juror] off the jury and let the first alternate serve.We could have concluded this trial.But, Chris [district attorney], what I am worried about is, I would think I would have to have a pretty high degree of...