State v. Smith
Decision Date | 10 September 2013 |
Docket Number | No. M2010–01384–SC–R11–CD.,M2010–01384–SC–R11–CD. |
Citation | 418 S.W.3d 38 |
Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE of Tennessee v. William Darelle SMITH. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Emma Rae Tennent (on appeal), Joan A. Lawson and J. Michael Engle (at trial), Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, William Darelle Smith.
Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; William E. Young, Solicitor General; Brent C. Cherry, Assistant Attorney General; Victor S. Johnson, III, District Attorney General; Chris Buford and Katy Miller, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
This appeal concerns the appropriate response when a trial court learns during a jury's deliberations that a juror exchanged Facebook messages with one of the State's witnesses during the trial. A criminal court in Davidson County declined the defendant's request to hold a hearing to question the juror and the witness to ascertain whether the communications required a new trial. The Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that the trial court had not erred by declining the defendant's request for a hearing. State v. Smith, No. M2010–01384–CCA–R3–CD, 2012 WL 8502564 (Tenn.Crim.App. Mar. 2, 2012). We disagree and, therefore, vacate the judgment and remand the case for a hearing consistent with this opinion.
On June 4, 2007, Zurisaday Villanueva's body was discovered on the side of the road near the Ashland City exit on Briley Parkway in Nashville. She had been shot twice. Investigators found two 9 millimeter shell casings near Ms. Villanueva's body, and the area around the body reflected that there had been a struggle. The investigation led the authorities to William Darelle Smith, with whom Ms. Villanueva had been living.
A Davidson County grand jury indicted Mr. Smith for the first degree murder of Ms. Villanueva. Before jury selection began on March 8, 2010, the trial court told the prospective jurors:
Over the country of late ... there's been some difficulty and it's going to force a change in the law with regard to jurors taking their cell phone and texting and trying to find out about a trial or things like that. That would be highly improper on a juror's part to do anything like that. As I say, you're required to make your decision solely upon the law and the evidence as you hear it in the courtroom.
During the jury-selection process, both the trial court and the attorneys questioned the prospective jurors about whether they knew the defendant, the prosecutors, the defense attorneys, or several of the investigating officers. Three of the prospective jurors who were eventually seated on the jury were employed at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center.1 Although the attorneys were aware that Dr. Adele Lewis, a medical examiner who had trained at Vanderbilt, would be testifying for the State, they asked none of the jurors, not even the three jurors affiliated with Vanderbilt, whether they knew Dr. Lewis.
After the jury was seated, the trial court provided preliminary instructions. As part of these instructions, the trial court stated:
During the course of the trial, you should not talk with any witnesses, defendants, or attorneys involved in this case. Please do not talk with them about any subject whatsoever. You may see them in the hallway, on an elevator, or at some other location. If you do, perhaps the best standing rule is not to say anything.2
During the trial, Mr. Smith's cousin testified that Mr. Smith told her Ms. Villanueva pulled a pistol on him during an argument and the pistol “went off” during the struggle. She also testified that Mr. Smith told her that the pistol fired a second time when he was trying to move Ms. Villanueva's body. Mr. Smith's girlfriend testified that Mr. Smith told her he had killed Ms. Villanueva but that he was not sure what had happened. In addition to this testimony, the State introduced evidence that the authorities had found Ms. Villanueva's blood in an automobile driven by Mr. Smith and owned by Mr. Smith's father.
Dr. Lewis, the assistant medical examiner who performed Ms. Villanueva's autopsy, testified that Ms. Villanueva had been shot twice, once in the chest and once in the back of the head. While Dr. Lewis could not ascertain which shot had been fired first, she stated that Ms. Villanueva could have survived the chest wound with proper medical attention but that she would not have survived the head wound. She also testified that the shots had been fired from an “indeterminate range” and that she found no evidence that the muzzle of the pistol had been held against Ms. Villanueva's skin. Dr. Lewis concluded that Ms. Villanueva's death was a homicide.
The State called one final witness following Dr. Lewis and then rested. After the trial court denied Mr. Smith's motion for a judgment of acquittal, the defense rested, and the parties made their closing arguments. The proceedings were then adjourned for the day.
When the trial resumed on March 10, 2010, the trial court charged the jury and then instructed the jury to begin its deliberations. Approximately one hour after deliberations began, the trial judge received an email from Dr. Lewis regarding communications that Juror Mitchell had initiated with her on Facebook following her testimony on March 9, 2010.3 The subject of Dr. Lewis's email was “Facebook,” and the email stated:
I can't send you actual copies of the emails since Facebook is blocked from my computer here at work, but here is a transcript:
Scott Mitchell:
Adele Maurer Lewis:
Scott Mitchell:
I regret responding to his email at all, but regardless I felt that this was a fairly serious violation of his responsibilities as a juror and that I needed to make you and General Miller aware. I did not recognize the above-referenced cardiologist or any other jurors.
Adele Lewis, MDWe do not know exactly when or how the trial judge told the attorneys about Dr. Lewis's email, but the record reflects that the judge told the lawyers about the email at some point. We also do not know whether the judge and the attorneys discussed the email during the jury's deliberations or what occurred during these discussions if they took place.
Once their deliberations were finished, the jury returned to the courtroom and announced that it found Mr. Smith guilty of first degree murder. Immediately after the trial court excused the jury, the following exchange occurred between Mr. Smith's counsel and the trial judge:
The trial judge then sentenced Mr. Smith to life in prison.
Mr. Smith moved for a new trial. Among other grounds, he argued he was denied a fair trial because the court forbade him from questioning Juror Mitchell about his exchange with Dr. Lewis and any other possible violations of the jury's instructions. The trial court denied the motion for a new trial without comment.
Mr. Smith raised the issue again on appeal. The Court of Criminal Appeals characterized the Facebook exchange as “mere interactions” between a juror and a third person, and upheld the trial court's decision not to question Juror Mitchell. The court reasoned that “[t]he trial court has the discretion to determine whether a jury has acted impartially.” State v. Smith, No. M2010–01384–CCA–R3–CD, 2012 WL 8502564, at *11 (Tenn.Crim.App. Mar. 2, 2012).
Judge Woodall wrote a separate concurring opinion. He emphasized that “[d]irect communication by a juror to a witness during the course of a trial,” including a Facebook message, “could never be considered appropriate.” State v. Smith, 2012 WL 8502564, at *11 (Woodall, J., concurring). He also expressed concern that “both the witness and the juror understood that the communication was improper” and that the trial court failed to conduct a hearing to question Juror Mitchell and Dr. Lewis under oath “concerning the possibility of any other similar communication during the trial, and to [admonish them] in open court for their improper conduct.” State v. Smith, 2012 WL 8502564, at *11–12 (Woodall, J., concurring). Judge Woodall also stressed that “[c]ourts must be vigilant to insure that there is never ‘prejudice to the judicial process' ... caused by improper communications from or to jurors during the course of a trial.” State v. Smith, 2012 WL 8502564, at *12 (Woodall, J., concurring) (quoting Tenn. R.App. P. 36(b)).
The right to a trial by jury in both civil and criminal cases is a foundational right protected by both the federal and state constitutions. 4 Far from being a mere procedural formality, jury trials provide the citizens with the means to exercise their control over the Judicial Branch in much the same way that the right to vote ensures the citizens' ultimate control over the Executive and Legislative Branches. Walsh v. State, 166 S.W.3d 641, 649 (Tenn.2005) (quoting ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Thomas
...“friend” request created a reasonable fear of offending the judge and not receiving a fair and impartial trial); State v. Smith , 418 S.W.3d 38, 42, 48–49 (Tenn. 2013) (requiring an evidentiary hearing to determine whether a new trial was necessary on the basis of juror misconduct after a j......
-
Hatfield v. Allenbrooke Nursing & Rehab. Ctr., LLC
...rather than information concerning the juror's internal thought processes. Tenn. R. Evid. 606(b); see also State v. Smith, 418 S.W.3d 38, 48 (Tenn. 2013) (applying Rule 606(b)'s limitations to a social media exchange). On the whole, we cannot conclude that Defendants have shown that the tri......
-
McClay v. Airport Mgmt. Servs., LLC
...to a jury trial envisions that all contested factual issues will be decided by jurors who are unbiased and impartial." State v. Smith, 418 S.W.3d 38, 45 (Tenn. 2013) (citing Ricketts v. Carter, 918 S.W.2d 419, 421 (Tenn. 1996) ; Wolf v. Sundquist, 955 S.W.2d 626, 629 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997) )......
-
State v. Davidson
...(2d Cir. 2002). The right to a jury trial requires that the jury be unbiased and impartial when deciding factual issues. State v. Smith , 418 S.W.3d 38, 45 (Tenn. 2013). "[T]he primary if not exclusive purpose of jury privacy and secrecy is to protect the jury's deliberations from improper ......
-
Facebook: Friend Or Foe? Protecting The Right To A Fair Trial In A World Dominated By Social Media
...Tennessee Supreme Court Justice William C. Koch, Jr. very well may agree with that sentiment after presiding over State v. Smith, 418 S.W.3d 38 (Tenn. 2013), in which the defendant challenged his right to a fair trial after a juror communicated over Facebook with the State's assistant medic......
-
Misconduct
...stated that she believed the outside opinions influenced the verdict. MISCONDUCT §533 Trial Objections 5-66 TENNESSEE State v. Smith , 418 S.W.3d 38, 42 (Tenn. 2013). A criminal court wrongfully denied a hearing request to determine whether a juror Facebook messaging an expert witness warra......
-
GOOGLING A MISTRIAL: ONLINE JUROR MISCONDUCT IN ALABAMA.
...Energy, 271 So. 3d at 809. (202) Juror No. One v. Superior Ct., 142 Cal. Rptr. 3d 151, 154 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012). (203) State v. Smith, 418 S.W.3d 38, 43 (Tenn. (204) See id. at 49. (205) Id. at 45, 47 (first citing State v. Jackson, 173 S.W.3d 401, 411 (Tenn. 2005); then citing John G. Brow......
-
Chapter § 7.03 Social Media: A âMust Useâ Tool for Jury Consultants
...was] evidence of juror misconduct that calls into question the fairness of his trial.”) (internal footnote omitted); State v. Smith, 418 S.W.3d 38, 42, 48–49 (Tenn. 2013) (requiring an evidentiary hearing to determine whether a new trial was necessary on the basis of juror misconduct after ......