Sandra K. Lewis, and husband, Carlton Lewis v. Jason M. Pendergrass and R. Eugene Pendergrass

Court of Appeals of Tennessee·Decided April 3, 1996·No. 03A01- 9510- CV- 00369·Published

Opinion

I N THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

EASTERN SECTI ON FILED April 3, 1996

Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk SANDRA K. LEW S a nd hus ba nd, I ) C/ A NO. 03A01- 9510- CV- 00369 CARLTON LEW S, I ) ) BLEDSOE LAW Pl a i nt i f f s - Appe l l e e s , ) ) HON. J . CURTI S SM TH, I v. ) J UDGE ) J ASON M PENDERGRASS a nd . ) R. EUGENE PENDERGRASS, ) REVERSED ) AND De f e nda nt s - Appe l l a n t s . ) REMANDED

HOWARD L. UPCHURCH, Pi ke vi l l e , f or Pl a i nt i f f s - Appe l l e e s .

LYNNE D. SW AFFORD, SW AFFORD & SWAFFORD, Pi ke vi l l e , f or De f e n d a nt s - Appe l l a nt s .

O P I N I O N

Fr a nks . J .

The de t e r mi na t i ve i s s ue on a ppe a l a s f r a me d by t h e

a p p e l l a nt s i s :

[ W t he r ] t he de f e nda nt s we r e de pr i ve d of a f a i r a nd he i mpa r t i a l j ur y be c a us e of J ur or Ra nki n’ s f a i l ur e t o r e s pond t r ut hf ul l y on v oi r di r a nd f ur t he r , be c a u s e J ur or Ra nki n a nd pl a i nt i f f s ’ c ouns e l bot h f a i l e d t o r e ve a l a r e c e nt a t t or ne y/ c l i e nt r e l a t i ons hi p a nd a n upc omi ng t r i a l whe r e i n pl a i nt i f f s ’ c ouns e l woul d b e a c r uc i a l wi t ne s s on be ha l f of J ur or Ra nki n. I n t hi s a c t i on whi c h r e s ul t e d i n a j ur y ve r di c t f o r

t h e p l a i nt i f f s , de f e nda nt s ’ c ouns e l , whe n c onduc t i ng t he v oi r

d i r e , a s ke d of t he pr os pe c t i ve j ur or s :

Ha ve a ny of you, l a di e s a nd ge nt l e me n, e ve r be e n r e pr e s e nt e d by M . Upc hur c h or hi s a s s oc i a t e , or r e mpl oye e , Eddi e Bor i ng?

Ha r r y Le e Ra nki n, a me mb e r of t he pa ne l , r e ma i ne d s i l e nt , a nd

s e r v e d a s a me mbe r o f t he t r i a l j ur y.

Thi s i s s ue wa s r a i s e d i n a mot i on f or a ne w t r i a l ,

a n d t he Tr i a l J udge s ubpoe na e d Ra nki n who t e s t i f i e d t ha t he

d i d n o t r e me mbe r t he a t t or ne y a s ki ng whe t he r pl a i nt i f f s ’

a t t o r n e y ha d e ve r r e pr e s e nt e d hi m. The Tr i a l J udge ove r r ul e d

t h e mo t i on a nd de f e nda nt s a ppe a l e d.

As we not e d i n Te nne s s e e Far me r s M ual I ns ur anc e ut

Co mp a n y v . Gr e e r , 682 S. W 2d 920 ( Te nn. App. 1984) , t he r e a r e .

t wo b r oa d c l a s s e s of c a u s e s f or t he c ha l l e nge of a j ur or :

Pr o p t e r d e f e c t um a nd pr opt e r af f e c t um. The l a t t e r c l a s s i s

g r o u n d s f or c ha l l e nge ba s e d on s ome bi a s or pa r t i a l i t y e i t h e r

a c t u a l l y s hown t o e xi s t or pr e s ume d t o e xi s t f r om

c i r c ums t a nc e s , a nd a s t he Gr e e r c our t obs e r ve d, t he

wi t h h o l di ng of i nf or ma t i on a mount s t o f a l s e s we a r i ng a nd

r a i s e s t he pr e s umpt i on of bi a s a nd pa r t i a l i t y. I d. 924.

Howe ve r , t he a ppe l l e e s c ount e r t ha t a me r e

p r e s u mpt i on i s c r e a t e d a nd t ha t t he r e c or d r e but s t he

p r e s u mpt i on. I t i s f ur t he r a r gue d t ha t t he r e l a t i ons hi p

b e t we e n t he j ur or a nd p l a i nt i f f s ’ a t t or ne y ?wa s a pa s t

r e l a t i ons hi p a nd not hi n g mor e . I t di d not r i s e t o t he l e ve l

o f b e i ng i nhe r e nt l y or pr e s umpt i ve pr e j udi c i a l . ? W c a nnot e

a gr e e .

Thi s a c t i on wa s t r i e d on Oc t obe r 6, 1994. On

2 De c e mbe r 3, 1993, pl a i nt i f f s ’ c ouns e l f i l e d a n a ns we r a nd

c r o s s - c ompl a i nt on be ha l f of J ur or Ra nki n i n a n a c t i on br ou g h t

a g a i n s t Ra nki n i n Bl e ds oe Count y. Among t he i s s ue s i n t ha t

c a s e wa s whe t he r Ra nki n’ s a t t or ne y, Upc hur c h, ha d i mpr ope r l y

n o t a r i z e d t he gr a nt or s ’ s i gna t ur e s t o a de e d whe r e i n Ra nki n

wa s g r a nt e e . I n M y of 1994, pl a i nt i f f s ’ c ouns e l t e s t i f i e d b y a

d e p o s i t i on i n J ur or Ra nki n’ s l a ws ui t , a nd whi l e no or de r wa s

e n t e r e d, t h e a t t or ne y’ s a f f i da vi t s t a t e s t ha t on Apr i l 13,

1 9 9 4 , dur i ng di s c ove r y de pos i t i ons i n t he Cha nc e r y l i t i ga t i o n ,

?i t b e c a me a ppa r e nt t ha t I c oul d not f ur t he r r e pr e s e nt M . r

Ra n k i n i n t ha t c a s e . Soon t he r e a f t e r I wi t hdr e w f r om t he c a s e

. . . .?

Of f i c e r s o f t he Cour t a r e r e qui r e d t o ?r e ve a l

p r o mp t l y t o t he Cour t i mpr ope r c onduc t by a ve ni r e pe r s on or

j ur o r . . . ? Te nne s s e e Supr e me Cour t Rul e 8, Code of

Pr o f e s s i onal Re s pons i bi l i t y , DR7- 108( g) . I n t hi s a c t i on,

n e i t h e r t he pr os pe c t i ve j ur or nor pl a i nt i f f s ’ a t t or ne y

r e v e a l e d t he i r a t t or ne y/ c l i e nt r e l a t i ons hi p t o t he Cour t . Th e

M s s i s s i ppi Supr e me Cour t i n t he c a s e of M s hal l Dur bi n, i ar

I n c . , v . Te w, 381 S. 2d 152 ( MS. 1980) , i n de a l i ng wi t h a l i k e

i s s ue s a i d:

A l a wye r ’ s dut i e s a r e not c onf i ne d a l one t o s e r vi n g hi s c l i e nt s . He i s a n of f i c e r of t he c our t a nd a s s uc h i s c a l l e d on t o do a nd s a y wha t e ve r i s ne c e s s a r y t o pr omot e t he f a i r a dmi ni s t r a t i on of j us t i c e . M . Le wi s s houl d ha ve c a l l e d t o t he r c our t ’ s a nd oppos i ng c ouns e l ’ s a t t e nt i on, hi s r e l a t i ons hi p wi t h t he j ur or . . . . I n or de r t o a voi d a ny s ugge s t i on of i mpr opr i e t y, c ouns e l s houl d a l wa ys di s c l os e a nd br i ng t o t he a t t e nt i on of t he c our t a nd oppos i ng c ouns e l , t hi s t ype of r e l a t i ons hi p wi t h pr os pe c t i ve j ur or s . I d. a t 154 - 5 .

I n o r de r t o r e s ol ve t hi s i s s ue t he t ot a l i t y of t he

c i r c u ms t a nc e s , not t he j ur or ’ s s e l f - s e r vi ng c l a i m of l a c k of

3 p a r t i a l i t y a l one , i s t o be c ons i de r e d.

W do not be l i e ve t he pr e s umpt i on c r e a t e d by t he e

f a l s e s we a r i ng of t he j ur or wa s ove r c ome . Thi s j ur or ha d b e e n

r e p r e s e nt e d by pl a i nt i f f s ’ c ouns e l unt i l j us t a f e w mont hs

b e f o r e t hi s t r i a l , a nd ha d a n ongoi ng r e l a t i ons hi p wi t h

p l a i n t i f f s ’ c ouns e l i n t ha t pl a i nt i f f s ’ c ouns e l woul d be a

wi t n e s s on J ur or Ra nki n’ s be ha l f i n t he Cha nc e r y Cour t

p r o c e e di ng. Howe ve r , t h e r e i s a mor e c ompe l l i ng gr ound t o

g r a n t de f e nda nt s a n e w t r i a l . Pl a i nt i f f s ’ c ouns e l , a s we l l a s

t h e p r os pe c t i ve j ur or , h a d a dut y t o r e ve a l t o t he Cour t a n d

a d v e r s a r y c ouns e l t hi s r e l a t i ons hi p. Pl a i nt i f f s ’ c ouns e l

c o u l d ha ve a voi de d a l l of t hi s by di s c ha r gi ng hi s dut y t o t h e

Co u r t . M e ove r , t he a ppe a r a nc e a l one i s pr e j udi c i a l t o t he or

j ud i c i a l pr oc e s s . Se e Rul e 36, T. R. A. P. For t he f or e goi n g

r e a s o n s we r e ve r s e t he Tr i a l Cour t a nd r e ma nd f or a ne w t r i a l .

W pr e t e r mi t t he r e ma i ni ng i s s ue s a nd a s s e s s t he e

c os t o f t he a ppe a l t o a ppe l l e e s .

________________________

He r s c he l P. Fr a nks , J .

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Sandra K. Lewis, and husband, Carlton Lewis v. Jason M. Pendergrass and R. Eugene Pendergrass, (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996).

Sandra K. Lewis, and husband, Carlton Lewis v. Jason M. Pendergrass and R. Eugene Pendergrass (Sandra K. Lewis, and husband, Carlton Lewis v. Jason M. Pendergrass and R. Eugene Pendergrass) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Co. v. Greer
682 S.W.2d 920 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1984)