Colyer, Wilkie Schell Jr.
428 S.W.3d 117
Tex. Crim. App.2014Background
- Defendant Wilkie Colyer convicted of DWI; jury returned guilty verdict and was polled; foreman initially said "it was a majority" then clarified "we voted unanimously."
- Defense observed foreman’s hesitancy and body language and later moved for new trial alleging juror misconduct based on foreman Aguilera’s post-trial testimony.
- At the new-trial hearing the foreman testified he changed his vote due to various pressures during deliberations: late hour, weather, parking/shuttle concerns, delays in receiving requested transcript excerpts, and a phone call that his daughter tested positive for MRSA.
- The State objected under Texas Rule of Evidence 606(b); the trial court allowed a hearing but limited testimony to Rule 606(b) exceptions and denied the motion for new trial.
- The court of appeals reversed, accepting the foreman’s testimony as uncontroverted and holding the trial court abused its discretion; this Court granted review.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the court of appeals, holding personal pressures (weather, desire to go home, family illness) are not "outside influences" under Tex. R. Evid. 606(b), the trial judge could disbelieve the juror, and the new-trial motion was properly denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court must credit an uncontradicted juror’s post-trial testimony at a new-trial hearing | Colyer: Foreman’s testimony was uncontroverted and established misconduct, so appellate court should accept it | State: Trial judge is sole credibility determiner and may disbelieve even uncontradicted testimony | Held: Trial judge may disbelieve uncontradicted juror testimony; appellate court erred in substituting credibility findings |
| Whether foreman’s reported pressures qualify as an "outside influence" under Tex. R. Evid. 606(b) | Colyer: Weather, parking/shuttle, delay, and doctor’s call were outside influences that pressured foreman to change vote | State: Those were personal/internal pressures unrelated to trial and thus not outside influences under Rule 606(b) | Held: Personal pressures (weather, desire to get home, family illness call) are not "outside influences" under Rule 606(b) |
| Whether information originating outside the jury room automatically constitutes an "outside influence" | Colyer: Anything from outside the jury room qualifies as an outside influence per McQuarrie definition | State: McQuarrie requires something external and relevant to deliberations; not all external events qualify | Held: External source alone is insufficient; the matter must be external and related/improperly brought to bear on deliberations |
| Whether juror may testify to how outside information affected his mental processes or verdict | Colyer: Foreman’s testimony about effect on his vote is admissible to show misconduct | State: Rule 606(b) bars juror testimony about mental processes and subjective effect | Held: Even if an outside influence exists, juror cannot testify about its subjective effect; courts apply an objective reasonable-person test |
Key Cases Cited
- McQuarrie v. State, 380 S.W.3d 145 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (defines "outside influence" as originating outside jury and jurors themselves)
- Golden Eagle Archery, Inc. v. Jackson, 24 S.W.3d 362 (Tex. 2000) (discusses Rule 606(b) history and the rule’s limitations)
- Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107 (U.S. 1987) (policy reasons for barring juror testimony about deliberations)
- Mattox v. United States, 146 U.S. 140 (U.S. 1892) (public policy forbids personal juror impressions to overthrow verdict)