McQuarrie v. State
2012 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1328
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2012Background
- Thomas McQuarrie filed a discretionary review challenging a juror's internet research as an 'outside influence' under Rule 606(b).
- The dispute centers on whether the juror’s webpage viewing about date-rape drugs constitutes outside influence that would allow juror testimony post-verdict.
- The dissent tracing history argues the Texas rule 606(b) is narrower than the federal counterpart, limiting outside influence to communications from outside the jury.
- The opinion analyzes Rule 606(b)’s evolution, including Baley and related Texas civil rule interpretations, and contrasts them with federal law.
- The juror’s act of viewing a webpage was not a communication from a person outside the jury, according to the dissent, thus not outside influence; thus the juror’s testimony should be inadmissible under Rule 606(b).
- The dissent also discusses the constitutionality of Rule 606(b), invoking Tanner and Golden Eagle Archery to argue that the rule does not violate the Confrontation Clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether juror internet research constitutes outside influence under Rule 606(b). | McQuarrie urges that internet research is outside influence. | State contends outside influence requires communication from outside the jury; internet research may be excluded. | Internet research is not outside influence; not admissible under Rule 606(b). |
| Whether Rule 606(b) as applied infringes the Confrontation Clause. | McQuarrie argues potential violation of confrontation rights if post-verdict juror testimony is allowed. | State argues protections and procedures preserve constitutional rights and integrity of the verdict. | Rule 606(b) does not violate the Confrontation Clause. |
Key Cases Cited
- Baley v. W/W Interests, 754 S.W.2d 313 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1988) (outside influence interpretation; newspaper articles not outside influence)
- Golden Eagle Archery v. Jackson, 24 S.W.3d 362 (Tex. 2000) (constitutionality of Rule 606(b))
- Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107 (1987) (extraneous information and outside influence; constitutional protection)
- Mattox v. United States, 146 U.S. 140 (1892) (extraneous influence origins)
- Perry v. Safeco Ins. Co., 821 S.W.2d 279 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1991) ( Baley lineage cited)