White, Natalie

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

---

NO. PD-0118-06

---

NATALIE WHITE, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

---

ON APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS GREGG COUNTY

---

   Price, J., filed a concurring opinion.  

CONCURRING OPINION

This case involves the collision of two provisions of law that seem irreconcilable to me. The first is Article 44.46(2) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. ⁽¹⁾ This statute requires a criminal defendant who has failed to challenge an absolutely disqualified juror until after verdict to establish "significant harm" from that juror's service on his jury before a reviewing court can reverse his conviction. The second is Rule 606(b) of the Texas Rules of Evidence. ⁽²⁾ This rule essentially prohibits a defendant from adducing testimony from the jurors who served on his jury with respect to "any matter or statement" occurring during the deliberations themselves, or their "mental processes" in arriving at their verdict. It also prohibits affidavits from those jurors, or even testimony of what those jurors might have told a third party about the jury's deliberative process. In view of Rule 606(b)'s stringent prohibitions, how can a defendant who must establish "significant harm" from the service of an absolutely disqualified juror under Article 44.46(2) go about satisfying his burden of proof on that issue?

The appellant makes two arguments that the Court, without substantial analysis, rejects today. First, the appellant argues that she can satisfy one of the two exceptions to the prohibitions in Rule 606(b). She contends that she can show that the service of the two absolutely disqualified jurors on her jury constituted an "outside influence [that] was improperly brought to bear" upon the rest of the jurors, and the rule's first exception expressly allows jurors to testify to such an outside influence. The Court is "unconvinced" by this argument, noting that several of our courts of appeals have defined an "outside influence" to be "something outside of the jury room and the juror." But it seems to me that the argument bears closer scrutiny than the Court affords it. After all, if two of the purported jurors are absolutely disqualified, it is at least arguable that their participation in deliberations would be just as "outside" an "influence" as would, for example, input from the bailiff. ⁽³⁾ Perhaps it can be said that absolutely disqualified jurors do not really constitute "jurors" at all, such that their input would amount to "communications and contacts with third parties[,]" the quintessential example of an "outside influence." ⁽⁴⁾ The Court does not confront this argument head-on, and none of the court of appeals opinions it cites resolves it.

The appellant's second argument is that to construe Rule 606(b) to prohibit her from piercing the veil of the jury room would make it impossible for her to sustain her burden of showing significant harm under Article 44.46(2). She would have a statutory right to relief, but it would be predicated upon a showing of harm that the Rules absolutely prohibit her from making. Such a right without a remedy would violate due process, she contends. ⁽⁵⁾ The Court responds today by pointing out that the rule does not prevent a showing of significant harm by other, non-juror evidence. I fail to see how this observation remedies the potential due process violation.

We have said that the reason that persons under legal accusation for theft are absolutely disqualified from jury service "is to insure the probity of the jury[.]" ⁽⁶⁾ A defendant who raises the issue of absolute disqualification before the verdict is entered is entitled to a new trial without a showing of harm because it is assumed that the integrity of the tribunal that rendered that verdict was compromised. ⁽⁷⁾ But a defendant, like the appellant, who fails (for whatever reason) to raise the issue until after verdict, must show something more to establish that the probity of the jury was compromised than the mere fact that a disqualified juror sat. ⁽⁸⁾ Otherwise, Article 44.46(2d)'s requirement of a showing of significant harm would be "meaningless." ⁽⁹⁾ As the court of appeals characterized it below, she must "demonstrate . . . substantial harm [that] is directly attributable to the service of the objectionable jurors." ⁽¹⁰⁾ The appellant cannot possibly make this showing from any source other than the jurors themselves (or their affidavits, or third-party testimony as to what one of them may have said about the deliberations afterward). Therefore, for the Court to assure her that she is free under the rule to resort to non-juror evidence does not satisfactorily resolve her due process claim.

I nevertheless concur in the Court's judgment. Neither of the absolutely disqualified jurors in this case actually served on the jury while laboring under the belief that he or she was charged with theft. Jones testified that he was unaware of the charge against him. Giddings testified that, for whatever reason, she had assumed that the theft charge had been dismissed. We must presume from the trial court's ruling that it credited this testimony. ⁽¹¹⁾ Neither disqualified juror could therefore have been serving on the jury with a motive to try to convince their peers to boost the appellant's punishment in order to curry favor with the prosecution and thereby improve his or her own position. Neither had any motive other than to use his or her best judgment as to the appropriate punishment to be imposed within the statutorily prescribed range under the particular facts of the case. I cannot conceive how the appellant could otherwise show, even if we were to construe Rule 606(b) to permit the jurors to testify about their deliberations, that the integrity of the sentencing tribunal was actually compromised by the service of the two disqualified jurors.

For this reason I would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals without reaching the particular questions the Court disposes of in its opinion. Accordingly, I concur in the Court's judgment, but do not join its opinion.

  Filed: June 6, 2007

Publish

1. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 44.46(2).

2. Tex. R. Evid. 606(b).

3.

See Parker v. Gladden, 385 U.S. 363, 364 (1966) (expressly describing bailiff's comments to jury during criminal trial as an "outside influence").

4.

See Steven Goode, Olin Guy Wellborn III, & M. Michael Sharlot, 1 Texas Practice:Guide to the Texas Rules of Evidence § 606.4, p. 687 (3^rd ed. 2002) ("What, then, falls within the outside influence exception? Since an outside influence must emanate from outside the jury and its deliberations, the exception comprises testimony concerning communications and contacts with third parties.").

5. This is not the first time we have heard such an argument.

See Ex parte Green, 159 S.W. 925, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (Dissenting Statement of Johnson, J., joined by Price, J.) ("We should not invade the jury room for little purpose, but due process demands that there be a way to address blatant jury misconduct. Rule 606(b) bars any examination of the process. A trial cannot be fair if the jury deliberations are tainted.").

6.

DeBlanc v. State, 799 S.W.2d 701, 707 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990).

7.

E.g., Thomas v. State, 796 S.W.2d 196, 199 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990).

8.

Nelson v. State, 129 S.W.3d 108, 112 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) ("A defendant may have his conviction reversed on appeal, even though he did nothing before the verdict was entered, but only if he meets a high standard that Article 44.46(2) raises on appeal.").

9.

Hernandez v. State, 952 S.W.2d 59, 71(Tex. App.--Austin 1997), reversed on other grounds, 957 S.W.2d 851 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) ("If the mere fact of conviction were 'significant harm' within the meaning of article 44.46(2), the statute would be meaningless. Appellant's interpretation of article 44.46(2) would read into the statute the very holding - service by an absolutely disqualified juror is 'automatic' reversible error - the statute was plainly designed to overturn.").

10.

White v. State, 181 S.W.3d 514, 517 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2005).

11. Under current law, when ruling on a motion for new trial the trial court is forbidden to "summarize, discuss, or comment on evidence." Tex. R. App. P. 21.8(b). We have said that in contexts in which the trial court acts as fact finder, but fails to make explicit findings of fact, we will assume that the trial court made implicit findings that support its ruling as long as those implicit findings are in fact supported by the record.

State v. Ross, 32 S.W.3d 853, 855 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).