618 S.W.3d 366
Tex. Crim. App.2021Background
- Appellant was convicted of evading arrest after a high‑speed chase; the State’s sole witness was the arresting officer who activated lights and siren before the stop.
- Defense theory: appellant did not know the officer was attempting to stop him until the officer was directly behind him.
- After trial, defense counsel spoke to a juror who said jurors heard a siren outside during deliberations and inferred the defendant could have heard a siren earlier; counsel submitted affidavits recounting that juror conversation in a motion for new trial.
- Trial court denied the motion for new trial; the court of appeals reversed under Tex. R. App. P. 21.3(f) (jury received other evidence), finding no contrary evidence to the affidavits.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals granted review and held the trial court was not required to believe the affidavits (and could have excluded them under Tex. R. Evid. 606(b)), and that a random outside siren is not “other evidence” under Rule 21.3(f); it reversed the court of appeals and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court was required to believe uncontroverted post‑trial affidavits recounting a juror’s remarks | Affidavits were unobjected to and effectively undisputed; therefore the trial court had to accept them | Trial court may disbelieve evidence offered on a motion for new trial even if uncontradicted | The trial court need not believe uncontroverted affidavits; its credibility determinations are afforded deferential abuse‑of‑discretion review |
| Whether Rule 606(b) barred consideration of the juror‑conversation affidavits | State failed to object at admission, so Rule 606(b) does not bar the affidavits | Rule 606(b) generally prohibits juror testimony to impeach a verdict except for certain external influences; the court may disregard affidavits as inadmissible under 606(b) | The trial court could permissibly disregard the affidavits under Rule 606(b); the State was not required to preserve the argument to defend the ruling |
| Whether the siren heard during deliberations constituted “other evidence” under Tex. R. App. P. 21.3(f) | The siren was extraneous sensory information that jurors used to infer the defendant heard police, so it was other evidence requiring a new trial | The siren was a random noise, not proof or commentary on the case; jurors may draw on everyday experience—this was not evidence detrimental to defendant | A random, external siren unconnected to the case is not “other evidence” under Rule 21.3(f) because it was not evidence and was not detrimental to the defendant |
| Proper standard of review for denial of new trial based on juror misconduct affidavits | Where evidence is uncontroverted, trial court has no fact issue to resolve and must grant new trial | Trial court’s factual credibility determinations are exclusive; denial is reviewed only for abuse of discretion | The Court adopts a uniformly deferential standard: trial court is exclusive judge of credibility even for uncontroverted evidence; reversal only for abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Colyer v. State, 428 S.W.3d 117 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (trial court may discredit post‑trial juror testimony; credibility for new‑trial motions rests with trial judge)
- McQuarrie v. State, 380 S.W.3d 145 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (discussion of outside influences and limits on juror testimony)
- Stephenson v. State, 571 S.W.2d 174 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (jurors’ receipt of detrimental extraneous material requires new trial)
- Garza v. State, 630 S.W.2d 272 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (character of extraneous matter determines whether it is ‘other evidence’ detrimental to defendant)
- In the Matter of M.A.F., 966 S.W.2d 448 (Tex. 1998) (sending an exhibit containing contraband back to jury qualified as ‘other evidence’)
- Rogers v. State, 551 S.W.2d 369 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977) (historical application of new‑trial rules for juror receipt of extraneous information)
- Evans v. State, 202 S.W.3d 158 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (when facts are conclusively established by stipulation or indisputable evidence, trial court bound to them)
- Okonkwo v. State, 398 S.W.3d 689 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (appellate review presumes trial court findings in absence of express findings; deferential standard)