Wilkie Schell Colyer, Jr. v. State
395 S.W.3d 277
Tex. App.2013Background
- Appellant Colyer was convicted of driving while intoxicated and challenged the verdict via a motion for new trial alleging juror misconduct.
- Evidence at trial consisted of the arresting officer’s testimony and a video of field sobriety tests; defense argued sleep deprivation and overwork as causative factors.
- After trial, the foreman Aguilera initially indicated a majority verdict; upon clarification he stated the jury reached a unanimous verdict.
- Defense counsel raised concerns about the foreman’s body language and the timing of the verdict, asking to withhold sentencing pending further record.
- Appellant was sentenced to a $550 fine, 20 days in jail, and a six-month driver’s license suspension; a motion for new trial was denied.
- At the new-trial hearing, Aguilera testified that his verdict was not a fair expression of his opinion and that outside influence (a doctor’s call about his daughter) caused him to change his vote.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court abuse its discretion denying new trial given uncontested outside influence? | Colyer contends outside influence changed verdict. | Colyer argues evidence is admissible under 606(b) to prove misconduct; state discipline pending. | Yes; the court abused its discretion; outside influence established. |
| Whether Rule 606(b) permitted Aguilera's testimony about the outside influence. | Colyer relies on outside influence permissible under 606(b). | State posits 606(b) limits testimony about deliberations; outside-influence exception applies. | Yes; testimony admissible under 606(b) and supports new-trial ruling. |
| Whether Rosell/Pharo framework supports a new trial when there is uncontroverted evidence of outside influence causing a vote change. | Colyer demonstrates outside influence altered verdict, requiring new trial. | State argues no clear outside influence or conflicting evidence; no misconduct proven. | Yes; uncontroverted outside influence showing altered vote supports reversal and remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- McQuarrie v. State, 380 S.W.3d 145 (Tex.Crim.App.2012) (defines outside influence as originating outside the jury room; supports admissibility of certain evidence)
- Salazar v. State, 38 S.W.3d 141 (Tex.Crim.App.) (new-trial grounds for verdict not expressed by fair juror opinion)
- Holden v. State, 201 S.W.3d 761 (Tex.Crim.App.2006) (abuse-of-discretion standard for denial of new trial)
- Rosell v. Cent. W. Motor Stages, Inc., 89 S.W.3d 643 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2002) (deliberation-influence evidence; outside influences vs. deliberations)
- Pharo v. Chambers Cnty., Tex., 922 S.W.2d 945 (Tex.2000) (probable injury and juror misconduct standard; guidance for new trial)
- Kirby Forest Indus., Inc. v. Kirkland, 772 S.W.2d 226 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1989) (pressures on jurors not considered outside influences)
- Aguirre-Mata v. State, 125 S.W.3d 473 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) (dicta on Rule 606(b) and outside influence)