## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS N O . P D - 0297- 08
JO H N N Y R A Y O C O N , A ppe l l ant

v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS ON S TATE’ S PET I TI ON FOR DI S CRETI ON ARY REVI EW FROM THE ELEVENTH CO URT O F AP PEALS

ECTOR CO UNTY M E YE RS , J. , de l i ve r e d t he opi ni on o f t he C our t i n w hi c h W OMACK , K EASLE R , H ERVEY , and C OCHRAN , J J ., jo in e d . K ELL ER , P. J. , f i l e d a c onc ur r i ng opi ni on i n w hi c h P RI CE , J ., jo in e d . J OHNS ON , J ., fi le d a c o n c u r r in g o p in io n . H OL C OM B , J. , c onc ur r e d. O P I N I O N A ppel l ant , J ohnnyR ayO con, w as char ged w i t h aggr avat ed s exual as s aul tof a chi l d. O n t he s econd da yof t r i al , defe ns e couns el overhear d one of the j ur or s t al ki ng on a cel l phone i n t he men’ s r es t r oom . T he j ur ors poke nega t i vel yaboutt he tr i al and i t s eff ect on hi s s chedul e. I n addi t i on t o t he t al ki ng j ur orand def ens e couns el , anotherj ur orw as also in the restroo m at t h e ti m e o f th e c o n v ersa ti o n . D ef en se c o u n sel m o v ed fo r aOcon–Pag e 2

m i s t r i al , butt he courtdeni ed the mot i on. T he j ur yfound A ppel l antgui l t yand as s es s ed hi s puni s hm entatl i fe i m pr i s onm ent . O n appea l , A ppel l antci t ed fourpoi nt s of err or . T he fi r s ts t at ed thatt he tr i al cour terr ed bydeny i ng hi s m ot i on form i s t r i al . O n t hatpoi nt , t he
c o u rt o f a p p e a ls re v e rs e d th e tr ia l c o u rt ’s ju d g m e n t. W e w ill r e v e rs e th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls . I. F a cts O n t he s econd da yof pr ocee di ngs , outof t he j ur y ’ s pr es ence , defe ns e couns el
re p o rte d to th e trial ju d g e th a t w h ile h e w a s in th e m e n ’s r e stro o m , h e h e a rd so m e o n e in t he s t al l s ayt he fol l ow i ng: B r enda. T h e y ’v e g o t m e o n th is d a m n ju ry. I d o n ’t k n o w w h yth e h e ll th e yp ic k e d m e . I w oul d r atherbe on a doubl e ax mur der ert hen [s i c] t hi s damn cas e. I t ’ s di r t y , di s gus t i ng. N o, unl es s w e convi ctt he bas t ar d t oday , t hen I ’ m ki nd of s tuck her e. I n addi t i on t o defe ns e couns el and the j ur orw ho w as s peaki ng on t he phone t o s om eone named B r enda, t her e w as al s o anotherj ur ori n t he r es t r oom . D efe ns e couns el m oved for
a m istria l. T h e trial ju d g e a c k n o w led g e d c o n c e rn f o r th e ju ro r’s b e h a v io r b u t u lti m a tely deni ed def

ens e couns el ’ s m ot i on, s t at i ng: I a m re lu c tan t . . . to g r a n t a m istria l an d a ss u m e th a t th e y ’re n o t g o in g to fo ll o w m yinstruction s, y o u k n o w , at t h is po int. N o w , that m aych an g e . I t hink t hat i f I br ou gh tt hem i n an d ta lk e d t o them i nd i vidual l y , i tw ou l d just a c c e n tu a t e t h e p r o b l e m.
*** I th in k w h a t I m ig h t d o is in stru c t th e m a g a in , y o u k n o w , o n so m e o f th e ir r es pons i bi l i t i es and kee pi ng an open m i nd and do t hat , w hi ch I’ ve t r i ed t o do.Ocon–Pag e 3

M ym ai n conce r n i s t o m ake s ur e y ourcl i entr ece i ves a fa i rt r i al . I m ean, t hat ’ s m ym ai n j ob.
*** I t hi nk att hi s poi ntI am goi ng to d en y y o u rm ot i on. B utI appr eci at e y our conce r n. I s hare i tand I w i l l , y ou know , s ee i f t her e’ s s om ethi ng–I ’ l l t hi nk abouti tand s ee i f t her e i s s om e w ayt o r emedyt hat t he j ur or s , t hatt heyr eal i ze t hat there i s m ore t o thi s then [si c] m a y b e t heirsent i m ents abo ut the case so fa r. A f ter th is ru lin g , the ju d g e re m in d e d th e ju ro rs o n f o u r se p a ra te o c c a sio n s d u rin g th e g u ilt phas e thatt heyw er e nott o t al k aboutt he ca s e w i t h any one. T he j ur yfound A ppel l ant gui l t yof aggr avat ed s exual as s aul tof a c hi l d and as s es s ed hi s puni s hm entatl i fe im p ri s o n m e n t. O n appea l , A ppel l antar gued fourpoi nt s , t he fi r s tof w hi ch addr es s ed the deni al of h is m o tio n f

o r m is tr ia l. O c o n v . S ta te , N o. 11- 06- 00036- C R , 2008 T ex. A pp. L E X I S 376,
a t * 1 (T e x . A p p .– E a s tla n d J a n . 1 7 , 2 0 0 8 , p e t. g ra n te d ) ( n o t d e s ig n a te d f o r p u b lic a tio n ). T h e c o u rt o f

a p p e a ls re v e rse d th e ju d g m e n t, co n c lu d in g th a t th e trial c o u rt a b u se d its d is c re tio n b yn o t g ra n tin g th e m o tio n f o r m is tr ia l. I

d. a t * 4 . I n r es pons e t o t he St at e’ s pet i t i on, w e gr ant ed the fol l ow i ng t w o gr ounds for
rev iew : ( 1 ) i f a juro r i s o v erh ea rd talkin g o n a telep h o n e in v ag u e term s ab o u t his j u ry dut y , m ayan appe l l at e courtas s um e he i s r ece i vi ng an unauthor i zed c om m uni cat i on fr om an out s i de s our ce, and ( 2) i s i tpr opert o pr es um e harm fr om a ce r t ai n cat egoryof nonc o n stitu tio n a l er ro r a n d to p lac e a b u rd e n o n th e S tate to re b u t th a t p re su m p tio n . W e w ill
cons ol i dat e thes e poi nt s bydi s cus s i ng t he bur dens and pr es um pt i ons r ai s ed byj ur orOcon–Pag e 4

Th e State ’s brie f re ferenc e s Ru le21 .3 of theRul e s o f A

pp e llatePr oc e dure . T hat r ule 1 states, “Thedefendant must be grante d a new trial . . . when a

juror has talked with anyone about the ca se . . . .” T EX . R. A PP . P. 21.3(f) . But, a s the title to Rul e 21–Ne w Trials in Criminal Cases–sug g ests, Rule 21.3 appea rs in case s addre ssing motions for ne w trial, and not in ca ses addre ssing motions for mistrial. Se eQu inn v . S tate , 958 S.W .2d 395, 401 (Tex. Crim. App. 19 97 ). Whil e motion s f

or ne w tri a l and

motion s f

or mis tria l ma

y be“ fu nc tio nally indisti nguishable,” the y

arenot identical. Ro drigu e z v . S tate , 8 52 S.W. 2d

51 6, 51 8 ( Te x. Crim. Ap p . 1 9 9 3 ) ( qu o t i n g Sta tev . Gar za , 7 74 S.W. 2d

72 4, 72 6 ( Te x. Ap p. –Co rp us Christi 19 89 , p e t. ref ’d)) . An orde r of mistrial “ordinarily occur s before completion of thetrial and the rendition of judgme nt,” while an order f or newtrial “c omes only

afte r sentenc e is imposed in a completed trial.” Id. Appellant did file a boilerplate motion for new trial, but that motion was not discussed by the cour t of appe als, nor is it the subject of the grounds for review grante d by this Court. Th e re fo re , th e State ’s arguments pe rt a ini ngto t hemotion

fo r n e w tri a l areme re ly

tang e nti a l. m isc o n d u c t w ith in th e p ro c e d u ra l co n tex t o f a m o tio n f

o r m istria l. 1 I I . Juror C om m uni cat i on A j ur orm us tm ake de ci s i ons att he gui l tand puni s hm entphas es us i ng i nfor m at i on o b ta in e d in th e c o u rt ro o m : th e la w , th e e v id e n c e , a n d th e tr ia l c o u rt ’s m a n d a te s . G ra n a d o s v . S ta te , 85 S. W . 3d 217, 235 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 2002) . W hen a j ur or“makes sta tem e n ts o u tsid e o f

d e lib e ra tio n s th a t in d ica te b ias o r p a rtiality , su c h b ias c a n c o n stitu te j ur ym i s conductt hatpr ohi bi t s t he ac cus ed fr om r ece i vi ng a fa i rand i m par t i al t r i al . ” I d. A r t i cl e 36. 22 of t he C ode of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e s t at es , “N o per s on s hal l be per m i t t ed t o conver s e w i t h a j ur oraboutt he ca s e on tr i al exce pti n t he pr es ence and byt he per m i s s i on of t he court . ” C OD E C R IM . P R OC . A NN . ar t . 36. 22 ( V ernon 2006) . T he p ri m a ry g o a l o f

A rt ic le 3 6 .2 2 is to in s u la te ju ro rs f ro m o u ts id e in f

lu e n c e . C ham bl is s v. S ta te , 647 S. W . 2d 257, 266 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 1983) . T her efor e, i f a vi ol at i on i s s how n, t he ef fec t i venes s of pos s i bl e r emedi es w i l l be det er m i ned i n par tbyw hethert heOcon–Pag e 5

The c ourt of appe als based its analy sis upon the rebuttable presumption without ever 2 re ferringto Artic le36 .2 2. B ut i nc identally , th ec a sec ite d b y thec ourt a s th e so urc e of

thi s analy tical sche me, Quinn , i s anArt i c l e - 3 6 . 2 2 - v i o l at i o nc a s e , a s i s th e c a s e i ntur nc i t e d b y Quinn , Robinson . Quinn , 9 58 S.W. 2d at 40 1; Ro bin so n v . S

tate , 851 S.W .2d 216, 230 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Thus, it seems, the c ourt indirectly acknow ledg ed that the c ell phone conversation violated Article36.22. Mistrials are not “ expressly provided for” in the Code of Criminal Proce dure. 3 Rodriguez , 852 S.W .2d at 518. co n v ersa ti o n inf

luen ce d the ju ror. A v io latio n o f

A rticle 3 6 .2 2 , o n c e p ro v e n b yth e d e f e n d a n t, trig g e rs a re b u ttab le pr es um pt i on of i nj ur yt o t he ac cus ed, and a mi s t r i al m aybe w arr ant ed. H u g h e s v . S ta te , 2 2 4 S .W .3 d 8 3 3 , 8 4 2 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ); Mo o d y v . S ta te , 827 S. W . 2d 875, 899- 900 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 9 2 ); R obi ns on , 851 S. W . 2d at230. W hen det er m i ni ng w hethert he St at e s uffi ci ent l yr ebut t ed the pr es um pt i on of harm , w e vi ew t he evi dence i n t he l i ght
m os tfavor abl e t o t he tr i al cour t ’ s rul i ng and def ert o t he tr i al cour t ’ s r es ol ut i on of h is to ri c a l f

a c ts a n d its d e te rm in a tio n s c o n c e rn in g c re d ib ility a n d d e m e a n o r. Q ui nn , 958 S .W .2 d a t 4 0 1 -0 2 . I I I . M i s t ri al A m i stri al i s an app ropri at e rem edyi n “ex t rem e ci rcum st ances” fo r a nar row cl ass of h i gh l yprej ud i ci al and i ncu rabl e err ors. H a w k in s v . S ta te , 135 S. W . 3d 72, 77 ( T ex. 3 C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ); W

o o d v . S ta te , 1 8 S .W .3 d 6 4 2 , 6 4 8 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ). A
m i s t r i al hal t s t r i al pr ocee di ngs w hen err ori s s o pr ej udi ci al t hatexpendi tur e of f ur t her tim e a n d e x p e n s e w o u ld b e w a s te f u l a n d f u tile . L a dd

v . S ta te , 3 S. W . 3d 547, 567 ( T ex.Ocon–Pag e 6

C r i m . A pp. 1999) . W hetheran err orr equi r es a mi s t r i al m us tbe det er m i ned byt he p a rt ic u la r f

a c ts o f th e c a s e . I

d. A tr ia l c o u rt ’s d e n ia l o f a m is tr ia l is re v ie w e d f o r a n a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . Id
. An appel l at e courtvi ew s t he evi dence i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he tr i al cour t ’ s rul i ng, c o n s id e ri n g o n ly th o s e a rg u m e n ts b e f o re th e c o u rt a t th e tim e o f th e ru lin g . W

ead v. S ta te , 129 S. W . 3d 126, 129 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 2004) . T he rul i ng m us tbe uphel d i f i tw as w ith in th e z o n e o f

re a s o n a b le d is a g re e m e n t. I d. B eca us e i ti s an extr eme r emedy , a mi s t r i al s houl d be gr ant ed “onl yw hen r es i dual p re ju d ic e re m a in s ” a f

te r l e s s d ra s tic a lte rn a tiv e s a re e x p lo re d . B a rn e tt v. S ta te , 161 S. W . 3d 128, 134 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 2005) . L es s dr as t i c al t ernat i ves i ncl ude i ns t ruct i ng t he j ur y“t o cons i deras evi dence onl yt he t es t i m onyand exhi bi t s admi t t ed thr ough w i t nes s es on t he s t and, ” and, ques t i oni ng t he j ur y“aboutt he ext entof anypr ej udi ce, ” i f i ns t ruct i ons a lo n e d o n o t s u f

f ic ie n tly c u re th e p ro b le m . A r iz ona v. W as hi ngt on , 434 U . S. 497, 521- 22 (1 9 7 8 ) (W h ite, J., d iss e n tin g ). T h o u g h re q u e stin g les se r re m e d ies is n o t a p re re q u isite to a mot i on form i s t r i al , w hen the movant does notfi r s tr eques ta l es s err emedy , w e w i l l not re v e rse th e c o u rt’s ju d g m e n t if th e p ro b lem c o u ld h a v e b e e n c u re d b yth e les s d ra stic
a lte rn a tiv e . Y

o u n gv . S ta te , 1 3 7 S .W .3 d 6 5 , 7 0 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ); s ee al s o W ood , 18 S. W . 3d at648 ( concl udi ng t hatt he tr i al cour tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng th e a p p e llan t’s m o tio n f o r m istria l w h e n th e a p p e llan t h a d n o t re q u e ste d th e les s d ra stic
re m e d yo f

a c o n tin u a n c e ).Ocon–Pag e 7

The re cord doe s not document Brenda’ s part in the conversation, and the la nguag e of 4 Ar tic le36 .2 2 e sta

bli sh e s tw o s pe ake rs , w ithatte nti on dire c te d to wa

rd theoutsi de r’ s ( B rend a ’s ) speaking : “No person shall be per mitted to converse w ith a juror . . . .” C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 36.22 (V ernon 2006) (empha sis added). N ever theless, at the trial court, both defense counse l and the State referre d to the incident as a “conversation,” implicatingboth the juror and B renda , and thetop ic of

that c onve rs atio n w a s th e c a seon tria l; the sefa c ts l ike ly

amou nt t o a n Artic le 36.22 violation. Moreover , several ca ses transpose“per son” and “ juror” when re ferencing Article 36.22, sug g estingthat the foc us is not on the identity of the spea

ker ne cessa

rily , but on the path of influe nce ( outside influencerea chingthe juror) . Hughes , 2 4 S. W.3 d at 84 2; Quinn , 958 S.W .2d at 401 (stating , “When a juror conver ses with an unauthorized person a bo ut t hec a se

. . .”(e mph a sis a dd e d) ); Gre e n v . S tate , 8 4 0 S . W . 2 d

3 9 4 , 4 0 6 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . 1 9 9 2 ) ( s t at i n g, “When a juror

does converse with an una uthorized person . . .”(e mph a sis a dd e d) ); Robinson , 851 S.W .2d at 230 (stating , “whe n juror s conver se with unauthorized pe rso ns about a c ase . . .” (e mph a sis a dd e d) ); Tho mas v . S tate , 699 S.W .2d 845, 853 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (stating , “the rulea g a ins t juror

s conver sing w ith unauthorized persons ” (e mph a sis a dd e d) ); Cha mb liss , 647 S.W .2d at 265-66. The State rebutted the pre sumption t o the extent permitted by defense counse l. There 5 was no opportunity

to cross-e x amine witnesses or to question jurors on the issue. IV . A n a ly sis T he comm uni cat i on ati s s ue mayhave c ons t i tut ed j ur orm i s conducti n vi ol at i on of A rt icl e 3 6 . 2 2 , w h ich p roh ibit s co n v ersing w ith a juro r ab o u t th e c ase o n tr ial . H o w ev er, 4
a v io la tio n o f

A rt ic le 3 6 .2 2 d o e s n o t a u to m a tic a lly w a rr a n t a m is tr ia l. Moody , 827 S .W .2 d a t 8 9 9 . R e p o rtin g th e c o n v e rsa tio n to th e trial ju d g e ra ise d th e re b u ttab le pr es um pt i on of i nj ur yt o A ppel l ant . B utw e conc l ude thatt he St at e r ebut t ed the p resu m p ti o n o f h arm b ysu b m itti n g that there w as n o w ayto v erifyd ef en se c o u n sel’s
acc ountof t he conve r s at i on and byr emi ndi ng t he j udge thatt he j ur or s had bee n i ns t ruct ed nott o t al k aboutt he ca s e. 5 B o th th e c o u rt o f

a p p e a ls a n d A p p e llan t m isin ter p re t th e S tate ’s b u rd e n to re b u t, s p e c if ic a lly w ith re g a rd to th e is s u e o f ju ro r q u e s tio n in g . O con , 2 0 0 8 T ex . A p p . L E X ISOcon–Pag e 8

“Importantly , our juror misconduc t prec edents have per mitted but not required 6 examination at a hearing of jurors ac cused of

misconduct, and the e videntiary rule that allows juror te sti mony

up on a lle g atio ns of

outsi deinf

luenc e or la c k o f q ualif ic atio n to se rv e is permissive and not mandatory .” Granados , 8 5 S. W.3 d at 23 6- 37 ; see also Hughe s , 24 S.W .3d at 84 2 ( fi ndingno a

bu seof dis c re tio n whe n th e tria l ju dg e re fu se d to c on du c t in c am e ra examinations of indivi dual jurors followingalleg ations of juror misconduc t). “[A] j uror may

testify : (1) whe ther a

ny outside influencewas improperly brought to bear 7 upon any juror; or (2) to rebut a c laim that the juror wa s not qualified to serve .” T EX . R. E V ID . 606(b). 3 7 6 a t * 3 . A p p e llan t’s b rie f to th e c o u rt o f

a p p e a ls s tate d : H o w e v e r, th is p re su m p tio n m a yb e re b u tted b yth e p ro se c u to r, as it w a s in R obi ns on , byques t i oni ng t he j u ror an d havi ng t he tr i al cour tdet er m i ne the j ur or ’s i m p arti ali tyan d w h ethe r an u n au tho ri ze d co m m uni cat i on w as di s cl os ed to o th e r j u ro rs . [ R o b in s o n , 851 S. W . 2d at229. ] H ow ever , no exami nat i ons of j urors [X ] and [Y ] w ere cond ucted byei t her t he tr i al cou rtor t he p rosecut ors. A p p e llan t as se rts th a t f

o r th e S tate to e f

f e c tiv e lyre b u t th e p re su m p tio n o f in ju ry , ith a d to i ni t i at e an i nqui r yof t he j ur or s : “The pr es um pt i on of harm i n A ppel l ant ’ s cas e w as not re b u tted . N o ju ro r w a s q u e stio n e d . . . . ” T h e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls a p p a re n tlya g re e d , as it ci t ed the l ack of

ques t i oni ng and the St at e’ s fai l ur e t o r ebutbefor e r ever s i ng t he tr i al
c o u rt . O con , 2008 T ex. A pp. L E X I S 376 at*3- 6. B utw hi l e ques t i oni ng j ur or s aboutal l egat i ons of m i s conducti s a hel pful t ool for
m easuri ng t he n ecessi t yfor a m i stri al , i ti s not r equ i red. O ur case l aw do es not es t abli sh ju ro r q u e stio n in g a s a m a n d a to ryre m e d y , n o r d o th e T e x a s R u les o f E v id e n c e . R u le

6 606( b) per m i t s , butdoes notr equi r e, j ur ort es t i m onyr el at i ng t o i m pr operout s i de i nfl uence orqual i fi cat i on t o s er ve. T EX . R. E V ID . 6 0 6 (b). A n d , co n tr aryto A p p ell an t’ s 7
as s i gnm entof t he bur den t o t he courtand the St at e, i f j ur or s ar e ques t i oned, i ts houl d beOcon–Pag e 9

Our re view is limit ed to those arguments prese nted to the trial cour t at the time of the 8 ruling , and Appe llant’s rec ent re gret that the juror s werenot questioned does not cha ng e the f act that the re medy

was not re quested at the trial court. B u t not only did Appellant not reque st juror qu e s t i o n i n gatth e tri a lc o urt , i ti s p o s s i b l e th atAp p e l l anta c tu a l l y d e t e r r e d j ur o r qu e s t i o n i n g . It would appea

r that Appe llant in fact a cted to pre vent the re medy he now f inds so desirable: [De fens e c ouns e l]: An d my c on c e rn is this be c a

us e–I me an, Ikn owthat th e Court ne e ds to inq uire int o it , b ut t

heon ly wa y to i nq uire int o it

tho ugh, is t o a c tually bringtho sejuror s in

and qu e sti on the m. B ut i f t

heCourt de c ide s n ot t o gra nt a mis tria l, t

he n I ’v e g ot . . . at le a st o neof the m in pa rtic ula r t hat is g oing to belooking at me like why were you listening to my conver sation. *** [Tria l ju dg e ]: Ithi nk that if Ibrou ght t

he m in and ta lke d to the m in div idu a lly , it wo uld jus t a c c e ntu atetheprob le m. [ De fe n s e c o un s el ] : Ire al i z e th at . An d th ati s my

co n ce rni nth e wh o l e th i n g. Such comments sug g est that Appellant waived any complaint that the jurors were not que stioned by dissuading thejudgefrom pursuingan inquiry . Robinson , 851 S.W .2d at 230 n.12. a t th e b e h e st o f

th e m o v a n t. P re c e d e n t o n th is iss u e , inc lu d in g th e c a se c ited in A p p e llan t’s b rie f

, es tab lish e s th a t itis in c u m b e n t u p o n th e p a rtym o v in g f o r a m istria l to
re q u e s t a n in q u ir yo f

th e ju ro rs . Fra n k lin v . S ta te , 138 S. W . 3d 351, 352 ( T ex. C r i m . A pp. 2 0 0 4 ); G r anados , 8 5 S .W .3 d a t 2 3 5 ; H ughes , 2 4 S .W .3 d a t 8 4 2 ; R obi ns on , 851 S. W . 2d at 229. R evi ew i ng t he ar gum ent s pr es ent ed t o t he tr i al cour t , notonl ydi d A ppel l antnot re q u e st q u e stio n in g , b u t ita p p e a rs th a t h e a c ted to p re v e n t it . 8 T h a t th e p a rtya lleg in g ju ro r m isc o n d u c t, no t th e S tate n o r th e c o u rt, sh o u ld in iti a te juro r qu esti o n ing , is co n sist en t w ith o u r rules o f e rror p rese rva ti o n . Q u esti o n ing juro rs w h o a lle g e d ly p a rt ic ip a te d in m is c o n d u c t is a le s s d ra s tic re m e d yth a n a m is tr ia l. A r iz ona , 434 U . S. at521- 22 ( W hi t e, J . , di s s ent i ng) . A n appel l antw ho m oves fora mi s t r i al w i t hout f irst re q u e stin g a les s d ra stic a ltern a tiv e f o rf e its a p p e llate re v iew o f th a t cla ss o f

e v e n ts th a t c o u ld h a v e b e e n c u re d b yth e le s s e r r e m e d y . B a rn e tt , 1 6 1 S .W .3 d a t 1 3 4 ; Y oung , 137Ocon–Pag e 10

Fa ctually , this case is ver y simil ar to Quinn , in which a juror talked to a c o-worker on the 9 phone duringthe guilt phase of the trial, beforethe def ense put on a

ny evidenc e. Quinn , 958 S.W .2d at 396. The juror in Quinn and the juror

in this case both communicate d information a bo ut t he ir sc he du le s ( Ocon juror : “ I ’m kin d o f s tuc k h e re ” ; Quinn ju r o r : “ Ig o t o f

f e arly [t o d ay], last night wewent to 7:00 p.m.”), both spoke disparag ingly of the c ase ( Ocon j ur o r : “ It ’ s d i rty, dis gus tin g ” ; Quinn juror: “it is a nasty mess”), a nd both called the de fenda nt a “ba stard.” Id. at S. W . 3d at70. H er e, A ppel l ant ’ s fi r s tact i on w as t o m ove fora mi s t r i al . A ppel l antw as n o t re q u ire d to p ro g re ss se q u e n tiallyf ro m lea st to m o st s e rio u s re m e d y , h o w e v e r w e w ill notr ever s e a tr i al cour t ’ s j udgm entw hen a l es s er , un- r eques t ed al t ernat i ve, s uch as j ur or q u e s tio n in g , c o u ld h a v e c u re d th e p ro b le m . Y oung , 137 S. W . 3d at70. C ons i der i ng t hatA ppel l antr eques t ed no al t ernat i ve r emedi es , he musthave be en s a tis f ie d th a t th e tr ia l ju d g e a g g re s s iv e ly u tiliz e d th e re m e d yo f th e c u ra tiv e in s tr u c tio n . A f ter th e in c id e n t w a s b ro u g h t to th e c o u rt’s a tten tio n , the trial ju d g e iss u e d f o u r se p a ra te in stru c tio n s to th e ju ro rs d u rin g th e g u iltp h a se , w a rn in g th e m n o t to d isc u ss th e c a se w ith any one and nott o for m orexpr es s anyopi ni ons r egar di ng t he ca s e. C ur at i ve i ns t ruct i ons f re q u e n tlyse rv e a s e f

f e c tiv e a ltern a tiv e s to th e e x tre m e re m e d yo f a m istria l, an d th e re is
n o in d ica tio n th a t th e f

o u r in stru c tio n s s u b se q u e n t to th e ju ro r’s m isc o n d u c t f a iled to re m e d yth e s itu a tio n . A r iz ona , 4 3 4 U .S . at 5 2 1 -2 2 (W h ite, J., d iss e n tin g ); G r anados , 85 S .W .3 d a t 2 3 7 . M o r e o v e r , t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a tt h e t r i a l c o u r td i d n o te s t a b l i s h a n “ e x t r e me ci r cumst ance ” w arr ant i ng a mi s t r i al . T hough t he j ur ors poke nega t i vel yaboutA ppel l ant and the ca s e, hi s w or ds comm uni cat e frus t r at i on t hathi s s chedul e w oul d be att he mer cy of t he tr i al ’ s pr ogr es s . A nd w e have acknow l edged that“i tdefi es comm on s ens e and 9Ocon–Pag e 11

397. In Quinn , we c oncluded that the a ppellant re ceive d a fair trial by an impartial jury . Id. at 403. Our c oncer

n would be much greater if Appe llant alleg ed that the juror rec eived 10 information from a

n outside source , but there is no indication of suc h an occurre nce here. See Robinson , 851 S.W .2d at 229 (a ddressinga juror who rec eived de tails about a new spaper story on the ca se from an outside source ). hum an natur e t o r equi r e thata j ur orhave no i m pr es s i ons oropi ni ons unt i l t he j udge s ends t he j ur yt o del i ber at i ons . ” Q ui nn , 958 S. W . 2d at403. M os ts i gni fi cant l y , A ppel l antpr es ent ed no evi dence t hatt he j ur orr ece i ved in f o rm a tio n a s a re su lt o f

th e p h o n e c o n v e rsa tio n . T h e m a in p u rp o se o f A rticle 3 6 .2 2 “ is to p re v e n t an ou t

si der fr om s ay i ng anyt hi ng t hatm i ghti nfl uence a j ur or . ” C ha m bliss , 647 S. W . 2d at266. A s t he tr i al cour tr ecogni zed, t he par amount i s s ue i s w hether A ppel l antr ece i ved a f

ai rand i m par t i al t r i al , and ther efor e the ana l y s i s m us tfocus on w hethert he j ur orw as bi as ed as a r es ul tof t he i m pr operconver s at i on, and notw hethert he j ur orbi as ed an out s i der . T her e i s no i ndi cat i on t hatt he j ur oron t he phone a nd t he other j ur orpr es entdur i ng t he conve r s at i on l eftt he men’ s r es t r oom w i t h anynew i nfor m at i on aboutt he ca s e fr om B r enda. 10 V . C oncl usi on B as ed upon the part i cul arfac t s of t hi s cas e and the evi dence pr es ent ed t o t he t r i al
cour t , w e ca nnots ayt hatt he courtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on bydeny i ng A ppel l ant ’ s m ot i on form i s t r i al . Si nce A ppel l antpr es ent ed no evi dence t o s ugges tt hatt he j ur orr ece i ved any
o u tsid e in f

o rm a tio n a s a re su lt o f

th e im p ro p e r c o n v e rsa tio n , the situ a tio n d id n o t rise toOcon–Pag e 12

t he l evel of an “ extr eme ci r cumst ance . ” A m i s t r i al w oul d have onl ybeen a ppr opr i at e had A ppel l antpr oven an e r r or i ncur abl e byl es s dr as t i c r emedi es . H er e, t he tr i al j udge pr oper l ycons i der ed al t ernat i ves t o decl ar i ng a mi s t r i al , and al t hough A ppel l antdi d notr eques ta cur at i ve i ns t ruct i on, t he j udge admi ni s t er ed fourw arni ngs t o t he j ur y , r emi ndi ng t hem not t o t al k aboutt he ca s e at al l t o any one. T her e i s no evi dence t hatr es i dual pr ej udi ce r emai ned af t ert hes e four i ns t ruct i ons w er e gi ven. T hatA ppel l antr egr et t ed the l ack of j ur orques t i oni ng on appea l d o e s n o t af

f e c t o u r re v iew o f

th e trial c o u rt’s r u lin g , as w e a re lim ited in o u r a n a ly sis to th e a rg u m e n ts p re s e n te d to th e tr ia l c o u rt a t th e tim e o f th e ru lin g . Co n s i d e r i n g t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e l i g h tmo s tf a v o r a b l e t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s ru l i n g , we h o ld th a t th e d e n ial o f

A p p e llan t’s m o tio n f

o r m istria l w a s w ith in th e z o n e o f re a so n a b le di s agr eement , and ther efor e, t he tr i al cour tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on. W e r ever s e the
cour tof appe al s and r emand t hi s caus e t o t he courtof appe al s s o t hati tm aycons i der A p p ell an t’ s rem ainin g p o ints of erro r.

M e y e r s , J .

D el i ver ed: J une 3, 2009 Publ i s h