### NUM BER 13-06- 0056 4-CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G
JU A N JOSE SA NC HEZ , A pp ellan t,
v. TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 6 3rd Dist rict C ou rt of Va l Verd e C ou nty , T exas . 

## M EMO RA NDUM OPI NI ON ON REHE A RI NG B efo re C h ie f Ju st ic e Va ld eza n d J u st ic es Y añ eza n d G arza M emo rand um Opin ion o n Re he aring b y Ju stice Ya ñe z On No vem b e r 18 , 2 0 1 0 , a p p e lla n t, Ju a n Jo se Sa n ch e z, f ile d a m o ti o n fo r re h e a rin g,
re q uest ing thatthe Cou rtrecons ide r it s d is posi ti on of his appeal

. W e grant the motion for
re hear ing , w it hdraw our prev iou s opi nio n and jud g ment of O cto ber 21, 2 010, and s ubst it ute the fol low ing i n i ts pla ce. Sanc hezw as conv icte d o f s e x ual as saul t of a c hil d, a sec ond- deg re e felony andSee T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 2 2.01 1(a )( 2)(A ) ( V ern on S up p. 20 10 ). 1 S e e W h i te v . S ta te , 22 5 S

. W

. 3d 57 1, 57 4 (T ex
. C ri m
. A pp
. 20 07 ). 2 T hi s app eal was t r ansf er r ed t o t hi s C our t f r om t he Four t h Cour t of Appeal s p urs ua nt t o a 3 d o c k e t-e q u a l i za ti o n o rd e r i s s u e d b y th e T e x a s S u p re m e C o u rt. See T EX
. G OV ' T C OD E A NN
. § 73. 001 ( Ver non 20 05 ). T

. G

. was bo r n on Februa ry 15, 199 0; t her ef or e, she was f our t een y ear s ol d on t he d at e of t he 4 i n c i d e n t. O n r e- di r ect exam i nat i on, re gar di ng t he i nci dentwi t h t he b oy i n t he swi m m i ng p ool , t he St at e asked,

5 "D i d y o u [T .G .] c o n s i d e r th a t b e i n g m o l e s te d ," a n d T .G . re s p o n d e d , "N o ." 2 w as sent enced to fiv e y ears' co nfi n e m e n t. Sa nchezch all eng es the j udg ment by three 1 is sues
. In hi s f irst tw o iss ues, Sanchezcontends that: (1 ) the t ri al cour t' s c omment th at "p olice of

f icers are the n um ber on e en forcers of [the ] c o n s t it u tion" during v oir dire const itute d f und am ent al error; and (2) "the cred ib il it y o f the verdict w as f und am ent ally under mined" by

a j uror w ho had ple aded g uil ty to a felony cr ime of moral tur pit ude. In the alt er nati v e, S anche zreq uest s, by his th ird i ss ue, t hat t his C our t "recog niz e tha t t he
conc ur re nce in W

hite v . St ate correctly

ana lyz ed th e law

and f ind tha t [the ju ror's] presen ce du r i ng d el i be rat i on s c on s ti tu te d an ' ou ts i de i nfl ue nc e. ' " W e affi r m. 2 3 I. B A CKGRO UND T.G. t est ified thatsh e l iv ed w it h her mother , her

mother's boyfrie nd, a nd her unc le, Sanc hez

. T.G. s tated that , on Apr il 1 8 , 2 004, after re tur nin g from a shor t t ri p to San Ant onio , Te x as, she w entto San chez's bedroo m to talk to him

. T.G. testif ied th at she told 4 Sanc hezthatw hil e s he w as in a hot el' s s w immi ng pool , a boy , app ro x imat ely her ag e, pu t his fing er

i n her v ag ina

. T.G. sta ted t hat w hil e s he ta lk ed to Sanc hez , s he w as ly ing on

5 her stom ach o n the f loor playing w ith he r cat and San chez w as put ting clothe s away in his clo se t. T.G. tes ti fied th at S anche zthen "sa t dow n on her l eg s" a nd s tar

ted r ubbi ng her back

. Acc ordin g to T.G., Sanc hezthen tur ned her around on to he r back , pul led her j eans3

and und er

w ear dow n to her

kn ees, put his fing er

i n her v ag ina , and mov ed i t "bac k a nd forth. " T.G. tes ti fied that Sanc hez ev entual ly ask ed her if she w anted him to sto p, and s he sai d, "Y es. " T.G. ex pla ine d tha t after Sanc hezst opped, she pul led her under w ear and jean s back on and w ant ed to leave; howev er, San chez asked T .G. to sit w ith him a nd ta lk for a li ttl e w hil e. T.G. t est ified thatSanc heztol d her thathe w as sor ry

and he w oul d nev er do it again. Acco rding to T .G., she the n w entt o the kitch en a nd grabbe d a knife be cause
s h e " d id n ' twa n tt o li ve a n ym o re
. " T

. G

. s t a t e d t h a t s h e d ro p p e d t h e k n ife , d ro p p e d d o wn to he r knees , a n d star

ted c ry ing ; s he th en to ld her mother w hat S anche zhad done, and her mother ca ll ed th e pol ic e. Rob ert Her nandez , a serg eant w it h the Del Ri o Poli ce Dep artment' s p atrol div is ion , tes ti fied that he tape- re corded an int er v iew w it h Sanc hez

. Serg eant Her nandezst ated that he adv is ed San chezof his co nst it uti onal r ights and that Sanc hezsi g ned a "w aiv er of ri g hts ." Serg eant Her nandezinformed Sanchezof T.G.' s a ll eg ati ons and as ked Sanc hez for his v ersi on of

the inc ide nt. Accordin g to Serg eant Her nandez , Sanchezstated that he had "gone too far" and tha t San chez w as "m oving his lef t inde x f inger dow n like this, like that, he h ad pl aced his hand on her crotc h as he s aid and did thi s a nd to ld her to sto p." Serg eant Her nandezst ated: That the w ay

Mr . Sanchezex pla ine d [the inci dent] w as that [the] y oung l ady had l ow ered her

pant s a nd unde rw ear dow n hersel f be low her crotc h. .

. . He sta ted i t w as an ac ci dent.

. . . H e s a y s t hat t he y oung l ady g rab be d hi s ha nd w hi l e he w as on he r c rot c h, to ok bo th of his h a n d s
. . . . He s t a t e d t h a tt h e y h a d

— ith a d g o n e t o o fa r, we sh o u ld n ' th a ve don e this, it sho uldn 't have g one this far. The tri a l cour

t t hen admi tted Stat e's ex hib ittwo—t hree audi o tap es of Serg eantI t app ear s f r om t he r ecor d t hat onl y por t i ons oft he t apes wer e pl ay ed i n op en co ur t when Ser geant 6 H er nande z i dent i f i ed e ach v oi ce he ar d on t he t apes. 4 Her nandez 's i nter

v iew w it h Sanc hez—i nto e v ide nce w it hout obj ect ion

. 6 On c ro ss -e x aminat ion , Sa nchez 's couns el ask ed Serg eant Her nandez , "An d i f the force of her han d cau sed him t o pen etrat e, okay, t hatwouldn 't b e a criminal of fense , w ould it ," Se rg eant Her nandezrepl ied , "If w hat y ou s ay i s t ru e, y es, si r. " Sa nchez 's co unsel then ask ed, "O kay , and i f he did n't do it on pur pose, but the force from her —th e c hil d putti ng her h a n d o n h is ca u s e d a n y p e n e t ra t io n wh a t s o e ve r, yo u u n d e rs t a n d t h a tis n o th is o wn int enti onal act, cor re ct, " Serg eant Her nandezrespo nded, "I w oul dn'tbe abl e to desc ri be
w hat t hose int enti onal acts w ere." On t he audi o recordin g , Sa nchezadmi tted that "jus t the ti p" of hi s i ndex fing er on his lef t han d w entin s id e T .G.'s vag ina. During the inte rv iew , San chez appe ars to claim that his fing er

so mehow

ac ci dental ly

sl ipp ed i nto h er

v ag ina

. He sta te d t hat T.G . w as
ex pla ini ng w hat h ad happ ened w it h the boy at the s w immi ng pool and that she pul led her pants dow n and "show ed [Sanche z ] w hat [the boy] di d." Acc ordin g to Sanc hez , he ask ed T.G. t o pul l her

pants backup and told her "w e can't ." Sanc hezspecul ated that T.G. w as atte mp ting to "lure" h im into a sexual enco unt er. Sanch ez claime d tha t he to uche d T .G.'s
v agina w hen he att em pte d to pu ll up her pan ts. T.G.' s mot her , C .S.L ., tes ti fied that she w as ly ing in bed w hen T.G. c ame i nto t he
ro om w av ing at C. S.L. and nudg ing her

. C. S.L. ask ed T.G. to t ell her w hat w as w ro ng , and T.G. w as unabl e to tal k a nd c onti nued w av ing at C. S.L. C. S.L. sta ted that she then g ot up , follo w ed T.G. to the h all w ay , and T.G. sti ll co uld not tal k. C .S.L . des cr ibe d T .G. as hav ing her ey es w ide open, "i n shoc k," and "s ort of" j umping up a nd dow n. C. S.L. tes ti fied th at she cont inu ed as ki ng T.G. w hat w as w ro ng , and thi nki ng thatT.G. w as chok ing , "hi t" herC .S .L . d i d n o t s ta te w h a t T .G . s a i d to h e r a b o u t t h e i n c i d e n t. 7 See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 2 2.01 1(a )( 2)(A ). 8 5 back

. After approx imat ely thi rty min utes , T.G. "bl urted o ut s omethi ng ." How ev er , C .S.L

. sta ted t hat s he c oul d notundersta nd w hat T.G . s aid

. Ev entual ly , C .S.L . und ersto od w hat T.G. w as say ing , and C. S.L. cal led the p oli ce. Ac cordin g to C. S.L. , app ro x imat ely a w eek 7 lat er , w hil e s he w as at he r mother's hous e, S anche zar ri v ed, b eg an c ry in g, a n d t o ld the fam ily , "yes, I did it . . . ." C.S.L. stat ed th at sh e cou ld notund erstan d an ything else Sanc hezsa id. Sanc hezw as ind icted for the offense of sex ual as saul t of a c hil d and the c ase w ent to tri a l. Duri n g v o ir d ire , d e fe n se co u n se l a sk e d th e ju ry pa n e l th e fo llo wing:

8 O k a y. Ho w m a n y p e o p le fe e l th e e xa c t s a m e wa y t h a t[ ve n ir e m e m b e r fo rt ytw o] do es, th at be cause y ou giv e great er weight to t he testim ony o f a pea ce o ffi c e r , y o u w o u l d re q u i re a d e fe n d a n t i n a n y c a s e , n o t j u s t t h is ca se, any cas e to produce ev ide nce in order to demonst ra te hi s g uil t—h is i nnoce nce, ex cus e me.
. . . Oka y . Now , ev en thoug h y ou feel that w ay ca n you put asi de th ose feeli ng s, becau se in fact y our feeli ng s a re i n di re ct cont ra dicti on to w hatthe law requires, okay? The law doe sn't require any defend antin any cr imi nal ca se to produce one pie ce of ev ide nce for one si mple re ason. He' s p re sumed inn ocent , and thatpresumpt ion of inn ocenc e i s s o g re at t hat if y ou h ad a hun dred police of f icers testif

y ing and you didn' tb elieve their tes ti mony

bey ond a re asona ble doubt , e ven thoug h he sati n s il ence and re mained mute, y ou w oul d be duty bound to acq uit , okay ? Ag ain , t hat' s t he law , and thatmay

not be how

y ou feel, but the q uest ion is, can y ou s et as ide you r f e e lin g s a nd foll ow the law , s o l et' s s tar

t w it h [v eni re member

tw elv e]. Can y ou s et a sid e yo ur feeli ng s a nd foll ow

the law , or

do y ou th ink

thata defend anthas got to prod uce e v iden ce in orde r to ov ercom e w hata pea ce off ic er tes ti fies to? Ven ire mem ber twel ve replied , "I'm a law enforcem entof

f icer, so I tend to giv e it a little
mo re credit, you know, to the law enforc e m e n to f f ic e r. I t w ould be ha rd to . . . ." At this poi nt, the t ri al cour

t i nter ru pted v eni re member tw elv e and sta ted: Ex cus e me, ex cus e me. Before w e do thi s[, ] l is ten v ery ca re f u lly to w hat [defense couns el] i s t alk ing abouthere. I kno w we h a ve a number of law6

e n fo rc e m e n to f

f ic e rs o n t h e p a n e l t o d a y, a n d I k n o w yo u t a k e t h is p e rs o n a ll y. I take the Unite d Sta tes Con st it u t io n and the laws tha t form th is count ry perso n a lly, too, and I bel iev e tha t pol ic e off ic ers a re our number one enforcers of

that const itution , so listen care f ully to w hat[defense coun sel] is ask ing y ou. Go ah ead. Defense co unsel di d notobj ectto the t ri al cour t' s c omment and sta ted: Letme se e i f

I can giv e it to y ou d if feren tly . I'm no t here to trap po lice off ic ers o r teac hers o r any one el se, and q uit e frank ly , hav ing been a p ro s e c u t o r, I k n o w e xa c t ly h o w yo u fe e l, b u te ve n t h o u gh yo u fe e l t h a twa y, that maynot be w hat t he l aw req uires in order

for y ou to si t on the j ur

y . That atti tude coul d be per

fectl y reaso nabl e w hen y ou are out in t he fiel d maki ng a bu st or an arrest, o kay? If I w ere an of f ice r m a k in g arrests, I w ould trust my partne r more th an I would a civ ilian w ho to ld me some thing. Th at's nor mal, but out h ere y ou are i n a d ifferent si tuati on. My q uest ion i s, can y ou put a si de th e w ay

thaty ou hav e been train ed to thi nk a n d t h e wa y y ou nor mally th in k and s ay l ook, I' m g oin g to follo w the law ; I 'm g oin g to follo w the constitu tion, and I'm going to do w hatI s w ear to d o if I'm select ed a s a juror
. That's my q uest ion

. Can y ou j udg e a c iv il ian the same w ay on j usta sta ndard eas y

fact s it uati on as y ou w oul d—woul d y ou g iv e hi s test imony the same w eig ht t hat y ou w oul d a p eace o ff ic er as to w hat c olo r the w all i s, or w oul d y ou nat urall y

bel iev e the pol ice o f

f icer i f he sai d i t w as bei g e as oppos ed to y ell ow ? That' s a ll I' m ask in g. Do y ou th ink y ou c an do that or not, [v eni re member

tw elv e], and I 'm no t c ri ti ci z ing y ou. Af ter San chez's tri al coun sel com plete d his question in g o f the jury pan el, the trial court st a te d th e fo llo wing: W hen an att orne y

asks a question thatcould result in a challen ge fo r cause I have to ma ke ab solute ly sure y ou unde rstand w hat he's asking. T here is a major dif

feren ce b e tw een w het her w e ha v e the highest hop e tha t police off ic ers w il l alw ay s t ell the tr uth. I thi nk ev er y person in thi s room has that feeli ng
. That's one thi ng
. It is q uit e anot her thi ng w hen an attor ney i s a sk ing you w h e n th a t p o lic e o f f ice r walk s th ro u gh t h a t d o o r, do e s h e w a lk t h ro u gh invested w ith ab solute truth like no o the r person, w het her it is a preache r, presi dent of the U nit ed St ates or any body el se. W hen t hey

w alk throug h the doo r of this courtroo m th ey are like anybod y else. You get on that wi tne ss sta nd, y ou te sti fy and t hat jur y deter mines w hether

y ou are tel li ng the tr uth or y ou are fibbi ng
. Nob ody i s c ouche d w it h abs olu te—that pr iv il eg e, an d tha t is w hatthe at torne y s are asking y ou. Just becau se the y are police of

f icers w oul d y ou aut omati cal ly bel iev e the m, tha t t hey are tel li ng the tr uth a nd nobody e lse , and does thatauto mati cal ly sh ift t he burden of proof in a cr imi nal ca se to the defendant' s si de of the cas e, w hic h v iol ates the Uni ted Sta tes Con stitutio n. T he Unite d St a t e s C onst itution say s a person thatisSee T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 2 2.01 1(a )( 2)(A ). 9 B l u e v . S ta te , 41 S

. W

. 3d 12 9, 13 1 (T ex
. C ri m
. A pp
. 20 00 ) ( en ba nc ) ( pl ura l i t y op
. ). 10 I d. at 132
- 33. 11 7 acc used of a cr ime car ri es no burden of p ro o f . Onl y the Di str ict Attor ney carries the burd en of proo f , and tha t's the reaso n I asked t h a t , so [ venire member tw elv e], I w asn' t ju mping on y ou, I j ustw anted to mak e s ure tha t w as clear. The ju ry w as empanel ed, a nd after a t ri al on the mer it s, Sanc hezw as conv icted o f sex ual
ass aul t of a c hil d. Thi s a ppeal ens ued. 9 II. P RESE RVA TI ON OF E RROR By hi s first is sue, Sanche zco ntends thatthe tr ial co urt' s s tatementthathe "bel iev e[d] that pol ic e off ic ers a re our number one enforc ers o f [th e ] const it uti on" w as f und am ent al error. Specif ically , San chez arg ues th at: (1) "[t]h e trial judge's state d bias in fav or of law enforce m e nt de stroy ed [h is ] presumpt ion of inn ocenc e"; ( 2) the comment "stripp ed [h im] of

his ri ght to an im partia l judge"; an d (3) the com me nt "e v iscerate d [his] rig ht to an imp artial tribun al." Fi nally, Sanche zclaims tha t he suf fered " gr e a th a rm a s a
re sul t of the tr ial co urt' s c omments. " As a g eneral ru le, a pa rty mustobj ectto a t rial co urt' s c omments in order to preser v e er ro r for appe ll ate rev iew

. Sanc hezconcedes that he did not o bje ct to t he tr ial 10
cour t' s c omment th at he co mplai ns of on appeal

. How ev er , rely ing on Bl u e v. State , Sanc hezarg ues that the t ri al cour t' s comment amounted to fundamental er ro r; therefore, he was not required to object to pre serv e error. 11 In Blue , after

apol og iz ing to potent ial j urors for a del ay in the p ro ceedi ng s, the t ri al
co u rtbl a m e d th e de fe n d a n t fo r th e de la y sta ti n g: Frankl y , an offer

has been made bythe Stat e or do I g o to tr ial

. And he [t heI d. at 130

. 12 I d. 13 I d. at 132

. 14 I d. 15 8 defendant] has been ba ck and forth so I f ina ll y

told him [the d efendant] I had eno ugh of

that , w e are going to trial. Y ou h ave been sitting out here and this is h olding up my do cket and I ca n't get a nything do ne unt il w e know if we are g oin g to tr ial or

not. [ ] 12 The tr ial co urt t hen t old the potent ial j urors t h a t h e p referred for the d efendant to pl ead guilty beca use it w ould sav e time and resources. The T exas Cou rt o f Cri min al App eals 13
conc lud ed th at t he tr ial co ur t' s c omments amounted to fundamental er ro r becau se "the jud g e's co mments impar ted i nformati on to the v eni re thattai nted the p re sumption of inn ocenc e." The c our t reason ed th at: 14 A j uror w ho k now s a t t he out setthatt h e d e f e ndant ser iou sl y co nsi dered enter ing i nto a ple a ag re ement no lon g er beg ins w it h a p re sumpti on th at t he d e fe n d a n tis in n o c e n t

. A j u ro r wh o h e a rs t h e ju d ge s a y t h a t h e wo u ld h a ve p re fe rr e d t h a t t h e d e fe n d a n t p le a d gu il t y m ig h t a s s u m e t h a tt h e ju d ge kn o ws s o m e t h in g a b o u tt h e gu il to f t h e d e fe n d a n tt h a tt h e ju r o r d o e s n o t

. Su re ly, no tr ia l ju d ge w oul d w ant a n i nnoce nt man to pl ead g uil ty , no matter how much d ela y

and ex pense he mi g ht be ca usi ng .[ ] 15 W e find that Blue is distinguisha ble f rom the facts in this case. The record in this case sh ows tha t the venire include d several po lice o f f icers, forme r po lice of

f icers, or peop le
w ho w or ked cl osel y

w it h l aw enforc ement. D ur ing the v oir di re , def e n se c o u n sel as ked g enerall y

i f the members o f the v eni re "g iv e g re ater w eig ht t o w hat [ a pol ic e off ic er] had to say ." Veni re member

tw enty st ated that "[i ]n [ his ] l ine of w or k y ou lear n to tr ustpeopl e w it h a badg e" and that he w oul d "put m ore v ali dity on w hat t hey

[peo ple w it h a b adg e] s ay than somebody

el se.
. . . " Se v eral other v eni re members then sta ted that they ag re ed w it h tha t
s en ti me nt

— on e s ta ti ng t ha t "a l l t ho s e pe op l e y ou n am ed [w i tn es s es for t he Sta te ] are myS e e J a s p e r v . S ta te , 6 1 S

. W

. 3 d 4 1 3 , 4 2 1 (T e x . C ri m
. A p p
. 2 0 0 1 ) (p ro vi d i n g t h a t t h e t ri a l c o u r t's 16 com m ent s wer e m er el y " ai m ed a t cl ear i ng up a poi nt ofconf usi on" and di d not ri se " t o such a l ev el as t o be ar on t he pres um pti on of i nn oc en c e o r vi t i ate t he i m pa rt i al i t y of t he j ury " ). 9 super v is ors." Veni re member forty -tw o s tated thatal thoug h he did not w or k w it h l aw enforc ement, he w as a "hear ing off ic er w it h the sc hool di str ict," he "tended to l ean t ow ards the policem an re vie ws o r their summ aries mo re," an d he "ten d[e d] to take th eir [police off ic ers' ] word on [si c] more w eig ht. . . ." W hen defense coun sel asked if ven ire member forty- tw o w ould require the defend antto "p rodu ce evidence to disprove w hat ever a peace of f icer or police of

f icer said," v en ire mem ber forty- tw o replied , "Yes." Eight v enire members ag re ed w it h v eni re member forty -tw o's st atements

. Defense co unsel then as ked if thos e members c oul d "s et as ide [t hei r] feeli ng s a nd foll ow the la w." Ve n ire member tw elve state d tha t he w as a law enforcem ent of f icer, and he "ten d[e d] to gi ve [ p o lice off ic ers] a l ittl e more c re dit ." The tr ial co urt t hen i nter ru pted the v oir di re as ki ng the v eni re to li ste n c arefull y to the defense c ounse l' s q uest ion s a nd ac know led g ing thatthe v eni re inc lud ed members of law enforcem ent . W hen the com plaine d-of comm entw as ma de, it appe ars that the trial court
w as attempt ing to cl ear up some confusi on among st the v eni re conc er nin g que st io ns regarding the truth f ulne ss of law enforcem e n tp erson nel. Althou gh the trial court's 16 comment mayhav e been ina rtful, it appears that the tri al cour t w as attempt ing to conv ey to th e law

enforcem entof

f icers presen t on th e v enire th at i tb elieved tha t police of f icers pla y an impor

tant role i n the admi nis trati on of j ust ic e. Defense co unsel i mmediat ely st ated that he w as not t here "to trap pol ic e of f icers" and c lar ified thathe w as attempt ing to det ermin e w het her the v enire m em bers "would nat urallyb elieve th e po lice of f icer if he said [the w all ] w as bei g e as oppos ed to y ell ow " and that he w as not "cr it ic iz ing " v eni re memberSee id. 17 S ee id. a t 4 2 0 -2 1 ; s e e a ls o B ru m i t v . S ta te , 206 S. W

. 3d 6 39, 644
- 45 ( T ex. C r i m
. App. 200 6) 18 ( hol di ng t hat t he t r i al cour t ' s com m ent t hat a pr ev i ous case m ade t he t r i al cour t " t hi nk t hat any bodyt hat ev er har m ed a chi l d shoul d be put t o de at h" di d " not r ef l ect bi as, par t i al i t y , ort hat t he t r i al j udge di d no t consi der t he ful l rang e o f pu ni s hm en t " ). 10 tw elv e.T he trial cou rt later explained th at it has a dut y to en sure tha t the v enire m em bers understa nd th e q uest ion s a sk ed during v oir di re and that there i s a "maj or di fference" betwe e n a hop e tha t police of f icers w ould alw ays tell the truth an d a be lief thata police off ic er i s a utomati cal ly

tel li ng the tr uth. The tr ial cour t als o made i t abu ndantl y cl ear that itw as a tt e m p ti n g to ensure tha t v eni re members u ndersto od th at t he mere fact that a perso n i s a pol ic e off ic er does not mean tha t he or sh e i s t ell ing the tr uth a nd th at t he Uni ted S tates C onst it uti on pl aces the burden of proof on the State and that the acc used h a s n o b u rd e n o f p ro o f. In Blue , t he tr ial cour

t' s sta tement that it preferred for the d efendant to pl ead g uil ty imp lied tha t it knew tha t the d efend antwas guilty beca use, a s the cou rt of criminal app eals
ex pla ine d, no tr ial co urt woul d w ant s omeone t o pl ead g uil ty to a c ri me he or

sh e di d not commi t t o s av e ti me and mone y . Here, t he tr ial cour t did not impl y that Sanc hezw as g uil ty or state his opinion reg arding San chez's g uilt; an d takin g the comp lained -of comm entin
c on te xt, t he t r i al c ou rt w as a tt em pt i ng , pe r ha ps u ns uc c es s ful l y , to c l ea r u p s om e confusi on. Therefore, the t ri al cour t' s c omment i n t h is ca se d id not r is e to lev el of the 17 comments made by

the tr ial co urt i n Blue
. W e con clude thatt he trial co urt's com me nt in 18 thi s c a s e w a s n o t s o s e r i o u s a s t o t a i n t t h e p re s u mp t i o n o f i n n o c e n c e ; a n d thus di d not
cons ti tute fundamental er ro r. Ac cordin g ly , b e caus e Sanc hezdi d notobj ectto the t ri alSee Bl ue , 41 S

. W

. 3d at 13 2 ( c on c l ud i ng t ha t no ob j ec t i on i s requ i red i f t he error i s fun da m en t al ). 19 See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. ar t

. 35. 16( a) ( 3) ( Ver non 2006) ( pr ov i di ng t hat a per son m ay not 20 be i m pa ne l ed i f t ha t pe rso n "i s un de r i nd i c t m en t or ot he r l eg al ac c us ati on for m i s de m ea no r t he ft or a fel on y " ); T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 37. 09( c) ( Ver non Supp. 201 0) ( st at i ng t hat t he o ff ense of t am pe r i ng wi t h ph y si cal evi de nc e i s a t hi rd de gre e fe l on y ). 11 court's com me nt, h e did no t preserve this alleged error. W e overrule Sanc h ez's f irst 19 is sue. III . J UROR D I S QUA LI FI CA TI ON By his secon d an d thir d i s s u e s , S anch ez challen ges the trial court's de nial of his
m o t io n fo r

n e w tr ia l b e c a u s e No rm a Ri o s , a m e m b e r o f t h e ju ry t h a tco n vic t e d S a n c h e z,
w as ab solute ly

disqualif ied f rom se rv ing on the jury. San chez arg ues th at "[ t]he mere prese nce o f a perso n w ho is abso lutely disqualif ied from serv ice ma y be suf f icient evidence
o f 's ig n if ic a n th a rm
. ' " T h e S t a t e co n c e d e s t h a t Ri o s wa s a b s o lu t e ly d is qu a li f ie d t o se rve
as a j uror
. The re cord rev eal s a nd th e St ate c onced es that Nor ma R ios pl eaded g uil ty to the o ffense o f

t amper ing w it h phy si cal ev ide nce and w as on defer re d adj udi cat ion
c o m m u n it y su p e rvi s io n wh e n sh e se rve d o n t h e ju ry t h a tco n vic t e d S a n c h e z. 20 A . Pertinent Facts After w e remanded thi s c ase to t he tr ial co urt, a hear ing on S anche z 's moti on for
new tr ial w as hel d. At the hear ing , Sanc hez present ed the tes ti mony of, among others, the Hono rable T hom as F. Lee , Jack Ste rn, and Rios. J u d g e L e e , t h e j u d g e w h o p re s i d e d o v e r S a n c h e z ' s t r i a l , t e s t i fi e d t h a t w h e n he "quali f ie d the jury ," he asked abo ut felon y convictions and pen ding felon y charges. Accordin g to Judge Lee , unle ss a ju ror informs h im of the pe ndin g charges or convictions, he mus t as sume t hat t he j urors a re q ual ified

. S t e rn , S a n c h e z' s t ri a l c o u n s e l, t e s t if ie d t h a tJu d ge L e e t o ld h im t h a t" t h e re m a y h a veT h e re c o rd d o e s n o t re v e a l w h e th e r J u d g e L e e w a s to l d th a t R i o s w a s n o t q u a l i fie d a fte r th e ve rd i c t. 21 12 been an unq ual ified j uror on t he pane l"; on cross -e x aminat ion , Ster n cl ar ified that he w as not if ied of

t he possib le disqualif ied juror a f ter the ju ry

ret urne d the verdict. On re-direct 21
ex aminat ion , St er n testi fied that the motion for newtri al he f il ed w it h the tri al cour t s tated , "o n th e d a t e f ollowi ng sente ncing[,] prose cuto rs and th e sitting judge advised defense
couns el that one of the jurors fai led to dis cl ose she w as on felony deferred ad ju d icati on probati on." Rios testif ied th at she com plete d a jury question naire prior to serv ing as a juror in thi s c ase. R io s st a ted t hat o n the q uest ion nai re , s he ans w ered "N o" to the q uest ion , "[H ]av e y ou ev er

been an ac cus ed, c omplai nant or w it n e ss o n a cr imi nal ca se[ ?]" How ev er , atthe moti on for new tr ial hear ing , R ios admi tted that she had bee n ac cus ed of the fel ony

offense of tamper ing w it h ev ide nce, thatsh e recei v ed two y ears o f defer re d adj udi cat ion co mmunity su per v is ion after

pl eadi ng g uil ty

to that offense, and that she w as sti ll on c ommunity

su per v is ion w hen s he s er

v ed as a j uror

i n thi s c ase. The tr ial co urt den ied Sanc hez 's moti on for new tr ia l. I n i ts findi ng s o f factand
conc lus ion s o f law , t he tr ial co urt c oncl uded t hat R ios w as dis q ual ified to ser v e as a j uror but t h a t S a n c h e z fa i l e d t o s h o w t h a t h e s u ffe re d s i g n i fi c a n t h a r m d u e t o R i o s ' s se rv ic e. The tr ial co urt al so concl uded t hat S anche z"fail ed to el ic itany ev ide nce that juror

R ios brou ght any outside inf luen ce imp rope rly to bea r against any j uror during the ju ry 's del ibe ra ti ons. " B. St and ard o f Rev iewan d A pp licab le L aw W e rev iew

the tr ial co urt' s d eni al of a moti on for n e w tr ial under

an a buse ofC h a rle s v . S ta te , 14 6 S

. W

. 3d 20 4, 20 8 (T ex
. C ri m
. A pp
. 20 04 ). 22 I d. 23 T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art

. 44

. 46 (Ve rno n 2 00 6). 24 See id. ; W hi t e v. S ta te , 2 25 S

. W

. 3d 5 71, 574 ( T ex. C r i m
. App. 200 7) ( expl ai ni ng t hat when a 25 def endan t di scov er s t hat a j ur orw as not qual i f i ed t o ser v e af t er t he ent r y ofv er di ct , " [ a] dut y on t he d ef endan t ari s es i n a n a pp ea l t o m ak e a sh ow i ng of si gn i fi c an t ha rm " ) ( i nterna l qu otat i on s om i t t ed ).

See C har

l es , 146 S. W

. 3d a t 208

. 26 13 d is c re t io n st a n d a rd o f

re vie w. 22 W e d o n o tsu b s t it u t e o u r j u d gm e n tfo r t h a to f t h e t ri a l c o u rt , b u tra t h e r we d e c i d e w h e t h e r

t h e t r i a l c o u rt ' s d e c i s i o n w a s a r b i t ra r y o r u n re a s o n a b l e
. W e must v iew

the ev ide nce in the l ig ht mos t fav orabl e to the t ri al cour t' s r uli ng and pres ume thatal l re asona ble factual findi ng s t hat c oul d hav e been made ag ain st t h e l o sing par

ty w ere made a g ain st that los ing par ty

. Thus, a tr ial cour t abu ses i ts dis creti on i n deny ing a mot ion for n ew tr ial onl y

w hen no re asona ble v iew

of the record c oul d s uppor t t he tr ial co urt' s r uli ng .[ ] 23 In a cr imi nal ca se, a c onv icti on maybe rev ersed on t he g ro und t hat a j uror
. . . w as absol utel y

di sq ual ified f rom se rv ice . . . only

if: ( 1) the d efend antraises the disq ualif ication before th e v e rd i c t i s e n t e re d ; o r ( 2 ) t h e d i s q u a l i fi c a t i o n w a s n o t d i s c ov er ed or broug ht t o the att enti on of the tr ial co urt unt il after the v erdict w as entered and t he defendant makes a show ing of s ig nific ant har m by the ser v ic e of the dis q ual ified j uror .[ ] 24 C. Discuss ion Here, S anche zdi sc ov ered th at R ios w as dis q ual ified after the v erdict w as entered; the refore, he h ad the b urde n of sh owi ng th at he suf

fered signif icant h arm b y Rios's serv ice
on t he j ur

y . Th e tr i al c ou rt c on c l ud ed t ha t San c he zh ad n ots ho w n s i g ni fi c an t ha r m. 25 T here fore, we must sust ain Sa nche z 's issue only i f no reaso nab le v iew of the record cou ld
su p p o rtth e tri a l co u rt 's rul in g. 26 By his secon d issue, Sanch ez argues tha t Rios's m e re p resen ce du ring jury del ibe ra ti ons cons ti tuted si g nific ant h ar m. I n W hite v . St ate , the appell ant arg ued t hat t heW h i te , 225 S. W

. 3d a t 573
- 74. 27 I d. a t 5 7 4

. R u l e 6 0 6 (b ) s ta te s , i n p e rti n e n t p a rt, 28 a j ur or m ay not t est i fy as t o anym at t er orst at em ent occur r i ng d ur i ng t he j ur y ' s del i ber at i ons, ort o t he e ff ect of

any t hi ng o n an y j ur or ' s m i nd o r em ot i ons o r m ent al pr ocesses, as i n flu e n c i n g a n y ju ro r's a s s e n t t o o r d i s s e n t fro m th e ve rd i c t o r i n d i c tm e n t.

. . . H o w e v e r, a j ur orm ay t est i fy : ( 1) whet her any out si de i nf l uence was i m pr oper l y br ought t o be ar upo n an y ju ro r . .
. . T EX
. R. E V ID
. 60 6(b ).

See W h i te , 225 S. W

. 3d a t 574

. 29 S e e W h i te v . S ta te , 1 8 1 S .W .3 d 5 1 4 , 5 1 7 (T e x . A p p – T e x a rk a n a 2 0 0 5 ), a ff'd , 225 S. W

. 3d 5 71 30 ( " [T ]h e r e c o r d f r o m th e p o s t- tr ia l h e a r in g m u s t d e m o n s tr a te th e d e f e n d a n t's a lle g e d s u b s ta n tia l h a r m is d i re c tly a ttri b u ta b l e to th e s e rv i c e o f th e o b je c ti o n a b l e ju ro rs ."); R is to ff v . S ta te , 985 S. W

. 2d 6 23, 624 ( T ex. App. –H oust on [ 1st D i st

. ] 199 9, no pet

. ) ( concl udi ng t hat al t hough t he " [ a] ppel l ant f i l ed a m ot i on f or new t r i al as s ert i ng t he j ur or was ab sol ut el y di squal i f i ed f r om j ur y ser v i ce byv i r t ue o fheri ndi ct m ent [ , ] " t he a ppel l ant fa i l e d to m e e t h i s b u rd e n b e c a u s e "a t th e h e a rin g o n a p p e l l a n t' s m o ti o n s , [th e ] a p p e l l a n t m a d e n o a tte m p t t o s ho w si gn i fi c an t ha rm " an d n on e w as ap pa ren t fr om t he rec ord ). 14 mere presenc e of tw o jurors w ho w ere notq ual ified to ser v e bec ause each had pen din g criminal cha rg es against them cause d him sig nif icant h arm. The court of criminal app eals 27 state d tha t it w as "u ncon v inced by [the ] app ellant 's cont ent ion that the [disqualif ied] jurors'
mere presenc e w as 's ig nific ant h ar m'" an d tha t "[ t]he pla in lan g uag e of the Ru le 606( b) ind ic ates thatan o uts ide i nfluenc e i s s omethi ng outs ide of both the j ur y room and the juror ." W e ag re e w it h the co urt of cr imi nal appeal s, and w e are no t persuade d tha t

28 Sanc h e zsh ow ed s ig nific ant h ar m mere ly by prov ing thatR ios w as dis q ual ified from s er v ing on the jur

y . At the motion for new tr ial hear ing , al thoug h Sanc hezprov ed th at R ios w as 29 abso lutely disq ualif ied, h e prese nte d no ev iden ce tha t he suf fered signif icant h arm d irectly
a t t ri b u t a b le t o Ri o s ' s se rvi c e o n t h e ju ry. 30 By hi s thi rd i ss ue, S anche zarg ues that Ri os' s p re senc e c onst it uted an out si de in f lu e n ce on th e ju ry; " th u s co n st it u ti n g per se 's ig nific ant h ar m' by v iol ati ng [hi s] ri g hts to hav e hi s c ase deci ded by tw elv e j urors, to d ue proces s, and t o due course of law ." Sanc hezhas ci ted n o aut hor ity es tabl is hin g thatev ide nce of an outsi de i nfluenc e on the"A n e w tria l m u s t b e g r a n te d if , 'a f te r r e tirin g to d e li b e r a te , t h e j u r y h a s r e c e iv e d o th e r e v id e n c e .'" 31 G a rza v . S ta te , 82 S. W

. 3d 791, 794 ( T ex. App. –C or pus Chr i st i 200 2, no pet

. ) ( ci t i ng T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 21

. 3(f))

.

W h i te , 2 2 5 S .W .3 d a t 5 7 4

. R u l e 6 0 6 (b ) s ta te s , i n p e rti n e n t p a rt, t h a t: 32 a j ur or m ay not t est i fy as t o any m at t er or st at em ent occur r i ng dur i ng t he j ur y ' s del i ber at i ons, ort o t he e ff ect of

any t hi ng o n an y j ur or ' s m i nd o r em ot i ons o r m ent al pr ocesses, as i n flu e n c i n g a n y ju ro r's a s s e n t t o o r d i s s e n t fro m th e ve rd i c t o r i n d i c tm e n t.

. . . H o w e v e r, a j ur orm ay t est i fy : ( 1) w het herany out si de i nf l uence was i m pr oper l y br ought t o be ar upo n an y ju ro r . .
. . T EX
. R. E V ID
. 60 6(b ).

S e e W h i te , 2 2 5 S .W .3 d a t 5 7 4 ; G a rza , 82 S. W

. 3d a t 794 ( " T he o ut si de i nf l uence m ust com e f r om 33 ou t s i de t he j ury an d i t s de l i be rat i on s
. " ).

S a n c h e z r e q u e s ts th a t w e fo l l o w th e re a s o n i n g i n J u d g e T o m P ric e 's c o n c u rr i n g o p i n i o n
. See 34 W h i te , 225 S. W

. 3d a t 575 ( Pr i ce, J. , concu r r i ng o pi ni on) ( st at i ng t hat " absol ut el y di squal i f i ed j ur or s do not rea l l y co ns t i t ute 'j uro rs' at al l , su c h t ha t t he i r i np ut w ou l d am ou nt t o ' c om m un i c ati on s an d co ntac t s w i t h t hi rd pa rt i es [ , ] ' t he qu i ntes s en t i al ex am pl e o f an ' ou t s i de i nfl ue nc e' " ).

S e e S i e rra v . S ta te , 1 5 7 S .W .3 d 5 2 , 6 0 (T e x . A p p .– F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 4 ), a ff'd , 218 S. W

. 3d 8 5 ( T ex. 35 C ri m
. A pp
. 20 07 ) ( no t i ng t ha t an i nterm ed i ate ap pe l l ate c ou rt " i s bo un d b y t he prec ed en t of t he T ex as C ou rt o f C rim i n a l A p p e a l s a n d h a s n o a u th o rit y to d i s re g a rd o r o v e rr u l e " i t); s e e a ls o S w ille y v . M c C a in , 374 S. W

. 2d 871, 875 ( T ex. 196 4) ( st at i ng t hat , " [ a] f t er a pr i nci pl e, r ul e or pr oposi t i on of l aw has b een squar el y deci ded by th e S u p r e m e C o u r t, o r th e h ig h e s t c o u r t o ft h e S ta te h a v in g ju r is d ic tio n o fth e p a r tic u la r c a s e , t h e d e c is io n is a c c e p te d a s a b in d in g p r e c e d e n t b y th e s a m e c o u r t o r o th e r c o u r ts o flo w e r r a n k w h e n th e v e r y p o in t is a g a in p re s e n te d i n a s u b s e q u e n t s u i t b e tw e e n d i ff e re n t p a rti e s "). 15 jur y co nst it utes si g nific ant h ar m. H ow ev er , as sumi ng w it hout deci din g that ev ide nce of an outs ide i nfluenc e on the j ur y c o n st it u tes si g nific ant h ar m, w e are notpersuade d by Sanc hez 's arg ument. The cour t of cr imi nal appeal s i n W hite rej ect ed the sa me arg ument 31 San chez make s in this app eal—th at th e prese nce o f tw o a b s o lu tely disqualif ied jurors participa ting in t h e d e li b eratio ns w as by i tself an ou tside inf luen ce. Again, the court
conc lud ed t hat a n out si de i nfluenc e "i s s omethi ng outs ide of both the j ur y room and the juror ." Therefore, w e canno t conc lud e that Ri os' s presenc e cons ti tuted an outsi de

32 influ ence. Sa nchezurg es us to dis re gard the maj or ity 's opi nio n i n W hite bec ause "no 33 defendant w il l be abl e to meet t he s tandard as se t fort h i n ar ti cl e 44. 46( 2) " i f w e c oncl ude Rios's presen ce did no t cause him signif icant harm

. W e de cline to do so; the holdin g in 34 W hite i s b ind ing precede nt. 35See C har l es , 146 S. W

. 3d a t 208

. 36 16 T h e re fo re , vie wing th e evid e n ce in th e ligh t mo st fa vora b le to th e tri a l co u rt 's rul in g,
w e c oncl ude th a t the t ri al cour t di d notabus e i ts dis creti on i n deny ing Sanc hez 's moti on for new trial. W e overrule Sanch ez's secon d an d third issue s.

36 IV. C ONCL US I ON W e aff ir m the tr ial co urt' s j udg ment.

LINDA REYNA Y AÑEZ, J u s t i c e Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP . P. 47 .2(b). Del iv ered and filed the 16th day of Dec ember

2010.