Leroy Killian Arista v. State, 13-13-00701-CR

Background

Defendant Leroy Killian Arista was convicted of capital murder; jury returned guilty verdict and trial court imposed mandatory life without parole.
Evidence included: victim found dead, missing firearms, Arista had items from victim’s home in his car and home (gun box, masks, gloves, shirt with gasoline odor), Arista’s DNA on a shirt recovered from victim’s property, and a tape where Arista said he would be "doing some more licks."
Defense called David (who had confessed and was serving life) to testify that Arista did not enter the house or know of the planned burglary; David later testified he had lied to police implicating Arista.
After trial, Arista filed a timely motion for new trial alleging juror misconduct: jurors discussed pretrial media reports labelling Arista and David as reputed members of the same gang and used that outside information to discredit David’s exculpatory testimony.
Trial counsel submitted an affidavit recounting a juror’s report of deliberation comments; later affidavits from that juror and a private investigator explained the juror’s initial unavailability. The trial court struck those later affidavits as untimely and denied a hearing on the jury-misconduct claim.
The Court of Appeals concluded the original motion and affidavit raised a matter not determinable from the record and showed reasonable grounds for relief, so an evidentiary hearing was mandatory; the court abated the appeal and remanded for a hearing on the motion for new trial.

Issues

Issue	Arista's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred by denying a hearing on jury misconduct alleging jurors used outside media reports to discredit defense witness	Arista argued jurors learned from pretrial media that he and David were "reputed" gang members and used that outside evidence in deliberations to discount David’s testimony; trial counsel’s timely affidavit and later juror/investigator affidavits supported a hearing	State argued counsel’s affidavit lacked personal knowledge of deliberations, juror affidavits were untimely amendments, and trial evidence already allowed inference of gang ties so outside reports added nothing	The court held Arista’s motion and affidavit raised matters outside the record and established reasonable grounds for relief; the trial court abused its discretion in refusing a hearing—remanded for a mandatory hearing on jury misconduct

Key Cases Cited

Wallace v. State, 106 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (purpose of motion-for-new-trial hearing explained)
Trevino v. State, 565 S.W.2d 938 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (hearing on motion for new trial is critical stage and creates record for appeal)
Lucero v. State, 246 S.W.3d 86 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (hearing required when motion raises matters not determinable from record and shows reasonable grounds)
Baldonado v. State, 745 S.W.2d 491 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1988) (affidavit sources for jury-misconduct claims)
Dugard v. State, 688 S.W.2d 524 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (support for affidavit rules)
Bearden v. State, 648 S.W.2d 688 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (affidavit support for new-trial hearing)
Barajas v. State, 732 S.W.2d 727 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1987) (same)
Garcia v. State, 291 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2008) (procedural support for affidavits in jury-misconduct claims)
Ford v. State, 129 S.W.3d 541 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003) (elements to show jury received outside evidence and that it was detrimental)
Garza v. State, 630 S.W.2d 272 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (juror misconduct/new-trial standards)
Eckert v. State, 623 S.W.2d 359 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (same)
Carroll v. State, 990 S.W.2d 761 (Tex. App.—Austin 1999) (jury receipt of outside evidence)
Jordan v. State, 883 S.W.2d 664 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (affidavit need not show every legal component but must show reasonable grounds)
Cueva v. State, 339 S.W.3d 839 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2011) (rule on amendments to motions for new trial)
State v. Moore, 225 S.W.3d 556 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (limitations on post-30-day amendments to new-trial motions)
Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (legal sufficiency remedy is acquittal; merits to be addressed separately)