No Bias from Juror’s Lunches with Officer

A trial court did not err in declining to strike from the jury pool a prospective juror who was friendly with and shared lunches with a police sergeant who might be called to testify in defendant’s case, and the Court of Appeals upholds defendant’s conviction of larceny from the person.

In the on-the-record recitation of the off-the-record motion to strike, defendant only indicated he made a motion to strike Juror No. 12 “based on the answers she gave to questions” and her “religious judgment issues.” However, the trial court made it clear that defendant had argued off the record that Juror No. 12 should be stricken from the panel based on the fact that she knows and has lunch with Sgt. Talley, a potential witness in the case. Therefore, we address the argument related to Juror No. 12’s relationship with Sgt. Talley.

None of Juror No. 12’s answers to the lawyers’ questions lead to a conclusion that her relationship with Sgt. Talley as a friend and knowledge of Sgt. Talley’s role as a police officer would cause her to be partial towards one party over another. The juror in this case did not need to be rehabilitated to show impartiality because she did not show partiality to begin with. While defendant may presume her partiality, it is not apparent from the record and we cannot presume it as a matter of law.

We affirm denial of the motion to strike Juror No. 12 for cause.

Smith v. Commonwealth (Humphreys) No. 1235-12-3, Oct. 8, 2013; Danville Cir.Ct. (Milam) Jason S. Eisner, PD for appellant; David M. Uberman, AAG, for appellee. VLW 013-7-261(UP), 6 pp.