Matthews, Eddie, PD-0098-15

Eddie Matthews was convicted in Bastrop County of continuous sexual abuse of a young child and sentenced to 50 years’ imprisonment.
The Third Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and declined to find an outside influence under TRE 606(b).
Matthews petitioned for discretionary review raising juror-misconduct and outside-influence theories under TRAP 21.3 and TRE 606(b).
A juror testified that another juror coerced changes in votes; affidavits and testimony suggested multiple forms of misconduct in the jury room.
The court below held that the juror-misconduct issues did not demonstrate reversible error under the controlling rules, and the appellate record supported the conviction.
The Court concludes the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial and the evidence supports the conviction for continuous sexual abuse.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does TRAP 21.3(c) and (g) cover juror voting guilt despite believed insufficient proof?	Matthews argues 21.3 covers such misconduct and allows review for outside-influence evidence.	State contends 21.3 and 606(b) do not override the requirement that outside influences be shown to review verdicts; misapplication should not occur.	TRAP 21.3 and TRE 606(b) operate together; outside-influence evidence is needed and not satisfied here.
Which comes first, 606(b) or 21.3, in evaluating juror misconduct?	Matthews asserts 606(b) should govern admissibility of juror testimony and limitations on evaluating misconduct.	State argues 21.3 governs granting a new trial, with 606(b) limiting admissible evidence; balance needed.	606(b) limits juror testimony; 21.3 lists grounds for new trial; the provisions work in tandem rather than in conflict.

Duncan v. State, 138 Tex.Crim. 172 (Tex.Cr.App. 1940) (mandatory new trial for verdict by illegitimate method)
Jennings v. State, 107 S.W.3d 85 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 2003) (reversible error when jury agreed to verdict contrary to individual opinions)
Hines v. State, 3 S.W.3d 618 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1999) (juror misconduct outside voir dire may support new trial)
Guice v. State, 900 S.W.2d 387 (Tex.App.–Texarkana 1995) (misconduct such as improper jury room discussions)
Paulson v. State, 28 S.W.3d 570 (Tex.Cr.App. 2000) (broad discussion of 21.3 grounds and jury misconduct)
Colyer v. State, 428 S.W.3d 117 (Tex.Crim.App. 2014) (outside-influence rule; admissibility of juror testimony)
Salazar v. State, 38 S.W.3d 141 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001) (jury misconduct and discussion of parole; admissibility limits)