586 S.W.3d 110
Tex. App.2019Background
- On March 17, 2016, Officer Bachar followed a white Mustang driving ~100 mph with flashing red/blue lights; he activated his emergency lights and siren and eventually stopped appellant, Zaid Najar. Bachar was the sole witness at trial.
- Central contested issue at trial: whether Najar knew an officer was attempting to detain him (i.e., whether he heard/observed the police signals). Defense argued Najar did not realize he was being pulled over until the officer was very close.
- The jury returned a guilty verdict for third-degree felony fleeing from a peace officer.
- After the verdict, jurors told counsel they had heard a street siren while deliberating on the fifteenth floor and used that siren to infer that if they could hear a siren inside the building, Najar should have heard an officer’s siren in his car—this influenced their verdict.
- Defense filed a motion for new trial under Texas R. App. P. 21.3(f), arguing the jury received “other evidence” during deliberations. The State did not object to defense affidavits recounting the jurors’ statements at the hearing and conceded the factual basis. The trial court denied the motion.
- The court of appeals reversed and remanded, holding the uncontested evidence established the jury received other evidence that was detrimental to Najar on a critical issue, requiring a new trial per Rule 21.3(f).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jurors receiving and relying on an extraneous siren while deliberating constitutes "other evidence" under Tex. R. App. P. 21.3(f) requiring a new trial | The State largely conceded the factual receipt of the juror statements but argued the siren was not an outside influence and could be general experience/common knowledge | Najar argued the jurors received outside evidence (the siren) during deliberations that they used to resolve the key factual issue (whether he heard the officer), which was detrimental | The court held the jurors’ hearing and use of the siren was "other evidence" and, because it was detrimental to Najar on a central issue, Rule 21.3(f) mandated reversal and a new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- McQuarrie v. State, 380 S.W.3d 145 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (standard that motion for new trial is generally within trial court discretion)
- Gibson v. State, 29 S.W.3d 221 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000) (elements for new trial under Rule 21.3(f): receipt of other evidence and that it was detrimental)
- Alexander v. State, 610 S.W.2d 750 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (uncontroverted juror testimony that jury received other evidence requires reversal)
- Rogers v. State, 551 S.W.2d 369 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977) (statutory predecessor required reversal when jury received adverse other evidence)
- Carroll v. State, 990 S.W.2d 761 (Tex. App.—Austin 1999) (application of rule 21.3(f) and consequence of uncontroverted receipt of other evidence)
- Deary v. State, 681 S.W.2d 784 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1984) (juror remark about unrelated experience held detrimental where it affected element central to guilt)
- Lewis v. State, 911 S.W.2d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (trial judge is factfinder at new-trial hearing)
- Hunt v. State, 603 S.W.2d 865 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (no separate harm showing required under the predecessor rule)
- Garza v. State, 630 S.W.2d 272 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (declining harmless-error analysis under predecessor rule)
- McGary v. State, 658 S.W.2d 673 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1983) (reversal without harm analysis under predecessor rule)
- Chew v. State, 804 S.W.2d 633 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1991) (same)
- Shivers v. State, 756 S.W.2d 442 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1988) (same)
- Lee v. State, 816 S.W.2d 515 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1991) (State waived Rule 606(b) objection by failing to raise it at the hearing)