With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Id. at 283. The facts of the instant case do not rise to the level of potential juror bias that concerned this court in Salgado and Martinez. In the instant case, prospective juror Thies stated at the outset, “I wouldn’t say that I would always give [a police officer] credibility because, you know, he’s at a different angle.” Thies stated that he would be fair and that he would do the best he could. Throughout his voir dire responses, Thies consistently indicated that he woul the best position to observe Thies’ demeanor, assess his candor, and determine whether Thies was impartial. After a thorough review of the record, we cannot find that the trial judge committed manifest error in determining that Thies was competent to serve as a juror. See, e.g., Morrison, 818 So.2d at 442 (<HOLDING>). Since we hold that Guzman failed to show

A: holding that on review of a motion to suppress the appellate court is to give deference to a trial courts factual findings but legal conclusions are reviewed de novo
B: holding that an appellate court must give deference to the trial judges determination of juror competency
C: holding in a case considering whether the trial court should have conducted a competency hearing sua sponte that an appellate court may only consider those facts which were before the court when the trial commenced
D: holding that where the issue before the court is legal as opposed to factual an appellate court need not give deference to a trial courts decision
B.