State of Missouri v. Antonio West, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 148

Antonio West was tried and convicted by a Buchanan County jury of three counts of delivery of a controlled substance (crack cocaine) based on three controlled buys using a confidential informant and audio recordings.
The CI identified West from a photo and confirmed West’s voice on recorded buys; transcripts and audio were played to the jury; criminologists confirmed cocaine base.
West did not testify at trial but called other witnesses; the jury replayed the audio during deliberations and returned guilty verdicts with ten-year sentences on each count (two consecutive, one concurrent).
After conviction, West moved for a new trial alleging the jury improperly considered his failure to testify; he proffered a juror’s testimony that jurors wished to compare West’s live voice to the tapes and discussed his silence.
The trial court refused to receive juror testimony because it would impeach the verdict and did not fall within recognized exceptions to the prohibition on juror testimony about deliberations; the court denied the new-trial motion.
West appealed, arguing that the jury’s consideration of his silence violated his Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether juror testimony that jurors discussed West’s failure to testify may be heard to impeach verdict	West: jurors considered his silence against him; denial of hearing violated his constitutional rights and deprived him of a fair jury	State: juror statements concern intrinsic matters of deliberation; juror testimony to impeach the verdict is barred absent narrow exceptions	Court: Denied — juror testimony was intrinsic and inadmissible; no exception applied
Whether trial court abused discretion by refusing to call juror to testify at new-trial hearing	West: trial court should have heard juror to determine misconduct	State: court properly followed rule barring juror testimony about deliberations and exceptions did not fit	Court: No abuse of discretion; motion and proffer properly rejected
Whether juror conduct amounted to unconstitutional use of defendant’s silence	West: discussion of his not testifying shows negative inference	State: proffered testimony only shows desire to compare voice, not that jurors penalized invocation of right; defendant had other means to challenge voice	Court: No constitutional violation shown
Whether new exception to juror-impeachment rule should be created	West: urged hearing would reveal constitutional error	State: existing narrow exceptions suffice; do not create new one for intrinsic deliberation matters	Court: Refused to create new exception

Fleshner v. Pepose Vision Inst., P.C., 304 S.W.3d 81 (Mo. banc 2010) (jury deliberation testimony generally barred; limited exceptions)
Storey v. State, 175 S.W.3d 116 (Mo. banc 2005) (juror affidavit/testimony inadmissible to impeach verdict)
Wingate by Carlisle v. Lester E. Cox Med. Ctr., 853 S.W.2d 912 (Mo. banc 1993) (same rule reaffirmed)
State v. Carter, 955 S.W.2d 548 (Mo. banc 1997) (jurors may not impeach a unanimous, unambiguous verdict)
State v. Herndon, 224 S.W.3d 97 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007) (juror testimony about deliberation misconduct not permitted)
Travis v. Stone, 66 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. banc 2002) (exception for extrinsic evidence obtained by jurors)
Chambers, 891 S.W.2d 93 (Mo. banc 1994) (trial court need not hear juror testimony on misconduct allegations outside recognized exceptions)
Baumle v. Smith, 420 S.W.2d 341 (Mo. 1967) (statements evincing ethnic or religious bias during deliberations fall within exception)
Woodworth v. State, 408 S.W.3d 143 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010) (jurors ‘‘speak through their verdict’’; deliberation secrets protected)