James Jordan v. State
01-14-00721-CR
| Tex. App. | May 8, 2015Background
- Appellant James Jordan was convicted of burglary of a habitation with intent to commit sexual assault in Fort Bend County, Texas.
- Jury trial resulted in guilty verdict and a 30-year sentence after a contested punishment phase with enhancement paragraphs found true.
- Appellant moved for a new trial based on juror misconduct, which the trial court denied after a hearing.
- During deliberations, jurors asked questions; trial court provided responses; Appellant objected only after responses were given.
- The State contends the juror experiment was not an outside influence and that Brady, new-evidence, enhancement, and reading-back issues were decided properly against Appellant.
- The appellate court ultimately denied Appellant’s motion for new trial and affirmed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Juror misconduct amounting to outside influence? | Jordan | Jordan argues juror conducted an experiment influencing verdict | No reversible error; not an outside influence or not prejudicial enough |
| Was withholding transgender status Brady material or new evidence? | Jordan argues Brady violation/new-evidence | State contends gender identity is not exculpatory or material | Brady not violated; not material; no new trial warranted |
| Are Louisiana priors properly usable for enhancement? | Jordan questions enhancement propriety | Louisiana felonies qualify under Texas statute for enhancement | Enhancement valid; proper under law |
| Was reading back a portion of testimony to jurors proper? | Jordan asserts error/waiver | Reading back was proper given disputed testimony | Waived or harmless; no abuse of discretion |
| Did the trial court err in the punishment-enhancement charge? | Jordan challenges reliance on certain priors | Enhancement within statutory range; not cruel/unusual | Within statutory range; not reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Keeter v. State, 74 S.W.3d 31 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (abuse of discretion standard for new trial rulings)
- Colyer v. State, 428 S.W.3d 117 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (outside influence test; discretionary standard preserved)
- McQuarrie v. State, 380 S.W.3d 145 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (outside influence requires hearing but not always mistrial)
- Ryser v. State, 453 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014) (definition of outside influence; effect on verdict considered via hypothetical juror)
- Robison v. State, 888 S.W.2d 473 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (read-back decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion under Art. 36.28)
- Trotti v. State, 698 S.W.2d 245 (Tex. App.—Austin 1985) (enhancement of out-of-state offenses for Texas penalties)
- Richardson v. State, 439 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2014) (out-of-state conviction as third-degree felony for enhancement)
- Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983) (gross disproportionality standard for Eighth Amendment)