i i i i i i



### OP I NI ON No s. 04 -0 7- 00 64 3- CR, 04 -0 7- 00 64 4- CR a nd 04 -0 7- 00 64 5- CR J o h n n y ADAM S , J r., Appellant
v. The STA TE of

Te xas, Appellee Fr om the 81st District Court, W ilson Count y , Texas T r ia l C o u rt N o s . 0 6
- 0 8
- 0 0 1 5 3
- CRW, 0 6
- 0 8
- 0 0 1 5 4
- CRW a n d 0 6
- 0 8
- 0 0 1 5 5
- CRW Honora ble Donna S. Ray es, Judge Pre siding Opinion by : Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Justi ce

Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: J uly 30, 2008 REVERSED AND REMANDED Appellant Johnny

Adams wa s found g uilty by a jury on three counts of aggrav at ed sexual assault of a

child and sente nced to twenty -five y ear s confine ment in the I nstitut ional Division of the Texas Depar

tment of C riminal J ustice. On a ppeal, Ada

ms asserts the trial c ourt err ed in allowing the alter nate juror to be pre sent for the jury d el i b er at i o n s . Be cause the alter nate juror ’s pre sence violated Article V, Section 13 of the Te x as Constitut ion, we re verse the judg ment of the trial cour t and re mand this matter for pr ocee dings c onsistent with thi s opinion.04
- 07
- 00 64 3- CR, 04
- 07
- 00 64 4- CR a n d 0 4- 07
- 00 64 5- CR

- 2- F A C TUA L B ACKG ROUND On August 31, 2006, Adams was indicted on three counts of ag g ravated sexual assault. The
case s were consolidated for tr i al , and jury

selec tion beg an on September 4, 2007. I n acc ordanc e with article 33.011 of

the Texas Code of C ri m i n al P roce dure, a n alternate juror wa s selecte d, impaneled, a

nd seate d. After

the attorne y s completed c los i n g ar gument, the trial cour t instructed the alter nate juror to continue with the j ury until a verdict was re ache d. The jury returne d a ver dict of g u il ty an d , o n c e a g a in , th e a lt e r n a te w a s in s tr

u c te d to jo in th e ju r y d u r in g it s d e li b e r a ti o non punishment with the cave at that she wa s not allowed to vote. Adams’s sole issue on a

ppeal is that the trial c ourt err ed whe n it allowed the alter nate juror to be prese n t f

o r d e li b e r a ti o n s w h e nth e a lt e r n a te ju r o r h a d n o t b e e nim

p an e le d a s a r e g u la r jur or. The sele ction of the a lternate juror wa s in acc ordanc e with ar ticle 33.011 of the Te x as Code of Cr imi na l Pr oc e dure and

is n ot i n di sp ut e . A ft e r t he c omp le tio n o f t e sti mony and the a tto rn e y s’ closing arguments, the trial cour t instructed the alter

nate juror that she wa s to: continue with the jury

u n t i l a ver dict is reac hed. So y ou will go with the twe lve members of

the j u ry i nto the jury

room for the deliberations but y ou will not be v o ti n g o n th e v e r d ic t u n le s s o n e o f th e ju r o r s w e r e to b e c o me d is a b le d during the de lib e ratio n p ro c e ss. Ad a ms a rgue s th a t a llo wi ngthe a lte rn a te jur or in t he jur y de lib e ratio n r oo m vi olate d h is constitutional right to a twe lve member jury under the Texas Constitution, as well as ar ticles 33.01, 33 .0 11 , 36 .2 2, and 36 .2 9 of the Te xas Cod e of Cr imi na l Pr oc e dure . Th e State c on te nd s A dams waived his complaint by failing to object to the alter nate juror ’s par

ticipation in deliberations, and the inclusion of an a dditional juror was not er ror.04
- 07
- 00 64 3- CR, 04
- 07
- 00 64 4- CR a n d 0 4- 07
- 00 64 5- CR

- 3- P R ESER V A TIO N O F E RROR A. G e ne r al S ta ndar ds The g ener al re quirement for prese rvation o f er ro r i s set forth in Rule 33.1(a) of the Te x as Rules of Appellate Procedure
. See T EX . R. A PP . P
. 3 3
. 1 ( a )
. S u c c i n c t l y, R u l e 3 3
. 1 r e qu i r e s “ a

t i m e l y, specific objection and a

ruling by

the trial cour

t” to prese rve a

complaint for a

p p el l at e re view. Me nd e z v . S tat e , 138 S.W. 3d 33 4, 34 1 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 04 ). Ye t an o bje c tio n is no t r e qu ir e d in
ever y in s ta n c e . T h e T e xa s Co u rt o f Cr im in a l A p p e a ls h a s id e n ti f ie d thr e e c a te g o r ie s of rules or rig hts: (1) sy stemic (or a

bsolute) re qui re m en t s; (2) wa ivable rig hts; and (3) for feitable rig hts. Id. at 340. Rule 33.1(a) does not apply to a violation of the first two ca teg ories of r

ules or rig hts, and a violation of those rule s or rig hts may be ra ised for the first time on appea l. Id. at 341. A sy stemic requir em en t i s “a la w that a tria l court has a

duty to follow even if the parties wish otherwise.” Id
. a t 34 0. Sy ste mic ri g hts inc lud e tho se tha t are statut or ily

or const itu tio na lly mandated, or are otherwise not optional, waivable or forf eitable by either pa rty . Sa nc he

z v . S tat e , 120 S.W .3d 359, 365-66 (Te x . Crim. App. 2003). Absolute, sy stemic rig hts are r ights a bout which a liti gan t h as n o ch o ice a nd are independe nt of the litiga nt’s wishes. Ma rin v . S

tat e , 851 S.W .2d 2 7 5, 279 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993), overr uled on other g rounds, Cai n v . S tat e , 9 4 7 S.W .2d 262 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). The implementation of these absolute re quirements and pr ohibitions is not optional and is theref

ore, ne ither wa ivable nor f orfe itable by

any party . Id
. Waivable rig hts are r ights that a judge h as an independent duty to implement absent an eff ective waiver by the def

endant. Id. at 280. “Althoug h a litiga nt might g ive [waivable rig hts] up and , in de ed, has a ri ght to do so , h e is n e ve r d e e me d to have do ne so in f a c t un le ss h e say s so plainly , fre ely , and intellige ntly , sometimes in writing a nd alway s on the rec ord.” Id
. at 280 (citing04
- 07
- 00 64 3- CR, 04
- 07
- 00 64 4- CR a n d 0 4- 07
- 00 64 5- CR

- 4- Go ffn e y v . S tat e , 843 S.W .2d 583, 585 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)). These rig hts are “ so fundamenta l to the proper

functioning of our adjudicatory proce ss” that they

do not vanish easily
. Ma rin , 851 S.W .2d at 278-79. For feitable rig hts arise from rules that a re optional at the reque st of a def endant. Id . at 279. Rul e 33 .1 a

pp lie s o nly

to t he se ri g hts
. Th e jud g e is re qu ir e d to imple me nt the m only a t th e re qu e st of a party , and they are forf eited abse nt objection made at trial. Id . at 2 79 -8 0; T EX . R. A PP . P. 33.1. B. Ana lys is I n the pre sent ca se, Adams’s trial counsel did not obje ct to the inclusion of the alter nate juror in t he jur y de lib e ratio ns . Ad a ms urg e s th is c ourt to a dd re ss t he e rr or a s sy ste mic or

wa iva ble -o nly
err or that does not re quire a timely objection. Be cause article 36.29 specific ally allows a de fenda

nt to w a ive the re qu ir e d tw e lve per so n ju ry and pr oc e e d w ithfe we r j ur or s, we c ann ot a g re e tha t a twelve- member jury

is a sy stemic rig ht so fundamental to the a dminist ration of just ice that it cannot be wa ived eve n by

a par ty ’s re quest. T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . ar t . 3 6.29(c) (Ve rnon 2007); Mende z , 138 S.W .3d at 340. We, there fore , examine whether the alleg ed violation is a waivableonly rig ht under the Te x as Constitut ion. See T EX . C O N ST . art. V, § 13. Adams ar g ues that his rig ht to a twelve- person ju ry is a rig ht that is waivable-only and

“ [w]a ive rs of

Con sti tut ion a l r ig hts no t on ly mus t be vo lun tary bu t mu st b e kn ow ing , in te lli g e nt a c ts done with suffic ient awarene ss of the re levant cir cumstance s and likely conseque nces.” Brady v. United States , 3 97 U. S. 7 42 , 7 48 (1 97 0) ; se e als o Mende z , 138 S.W .3d at 344. Although the United States Constit ution does not require that a spec ific number of jurors be seate d on a jury

panel, Ar ticle V, Section 13 of the Texas Constitution and article 33.01 of the Te x as C o d e o f C r i m i n a l P r o c e d

u r e b o t h p r o v i d e t h a tt h e j u r y sha ll c on sis t of

tw e lve qu a lif

ie d ju ro rs .04
- 07
- 00 64 3- CR, 04
- 07
- 00 64 4- CR a n d 0 4- 07
- 00 64 5- CR

- 5- T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . a rt . 3 3. 01 (V e rn on

20 06 ); T EX . C O N ST . art. V, § 13. I n Marin, the Court of Cr imi na l App e a ls expl a ine d tha t “[s]om e ri g hts are wi de ly c on sid e re d s o f

un dame nta l to the prope r fu n ct ioning of our adjudicatory

proce ss as to enjoy

specia l protection in the sy stem.” Ma rin , 851 S. W. 2 d a t 2 7 8
. T h e s e ar e r ig h ts th a t c an n o t b e f o r f e it e d o r r e li n qu is h e d w it

h out an express waiver

and “a re not e x tinguished by i n action alone .” Id. (c i t i n g J an e c k a v . S tat e , 823 S.W .2d 232, 243 n.2 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (opinion on rehe aring )). In its analy sis, the Ma rin court identified two suc h rig hts: assistance of c ounsel and the rig ht to a jury trial. Id . at 279. More sp e c if ic a lly , th e “ State may

no t su c c e ssf

ull y pu t [a de fe nd ant] to tr ia l w ith ou t c ouns e l or jur y me re ly beca use he voic ed no objec tion to the procedur e.” Id
. The Constituti onal rig ht to a twelve pe rson jury appea rs to be the ty

pe of r ight that r equire s specia l p ro t ec t i o n . I t cannot be de nied abse nt an express waive r. Ac cording ly , we hold that the ri g ht t o a tw e lve me mbe r jur

y is a w a iva

ble -o nly ri g ht a nd Ad a ms w a s n ot r e qu ir e d to c omp ly wi th rule 33.1 in orde r to prese rve e rror . T EX . C ODE . C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 33.011(b) (Ve rnon 2007); T EX . R. A PP . P. 33. 1. We now ex amine the merits of Adams’s claim and whe ther the pa rticipation of the a lternate juror in deliber ations violates the Texas Constit ution. T HE R I GHT T O A T W ELVE M E M B E R J URY Th e ri g ht t o a

ve rd ic t r e nd e re d b y

tw e lve jur or s is a c on sti tut ion a lly pr ote c te d r ig ht i n T e xas. The Te x as Constitut ion mandates that there shall be twelve jurors, but furthe r provides that “[w] hen, pending the trial of a

ny case , one or more jurors not exceeding three , may die, or be disabled fr om sitti ng , the re mainder of

the jury shall have the power

to rende r the ve rdict; provided, that the L e g isl a ture m ay

c ha ng e or mod if y the ru le a

uth or izin g le ss t

ha n th e wh ole numbe r o f t

he jur y to rende r a ve rdict.” T EX . C O N ST . art. V, § 13. A dd i t i o n al l y , article 36.29 of the Te x as Code of04
- 07
- 00 64 3- CR, 04
- 07
- 00 64 4- CR a n d 0 4- 07
- 00 64 5- CR

- 6- Criminal Procedure provides that, under cer tain circ umstances, e leven juror s may rende r a ve rdict in a fe lony

case . T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . ar t . 36.29 (Ve rnon 2006). See Rivera v . State, 12 S.W .3d 572, 579 (Tex. A pp.—San Antonio 2000, no pet.) (re iterating that the Texas Constit ution require s twelve membe r jury absent c erta in sta t u t o ry ex ceptions). There a re no c onstitut ional or statutory exceptions permitting more t han twelve jurors, althoug h there is statutory authority for the impaneling of alter

nate juror s. T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . a rt . 3 3. 01 1 ( e na c te d in

an e ff or t to avoid mistrials due to dismis sal of jurors dur ing tr ial). Orig inally , article 33.011 requi red tria l courts to discharg e alter nate juror s after

the jury
re tir e d to c on sid e r its ve rd ic t. Ho we ve r, in 20 07 , Ho us e B ill 10 86 wa s pa sse d re qu ir ing an a lte rn a te jur or to s tay un til “ the jur

y ha s r e nd e re d a

ve rd ic t on

the g uil t or

inn oc e nc e of

the de fe nd ant a

nd , if applicable , the amount of punishment.” T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art . 33 .0 11 (b ); Ac t of Se pt. 1, 2007, 80th L eg ., R.S., ch. 846, § 1. This amended ve rsion of ar ticle 33.011 bec ame e ffe ctive on September 1, 2007. B eca use Adams’s trial commence d on October 8, 2007, the amende d version of ar ticle 33.011(b) is a

pplicable to the c ase. A. Ar ti c le 33 .0 11 (b ) Pursuant to article 33.011( b) the trial c ourt allowed the alterna t e j u ror to remain with the jur y , in the de lib e ratio n r oo m, u

nti l a ve rd ic t wa s re a c he d a nd se nte nc ingwa s c omp le te d. Ad a ms argues th is is a

vio la tio n o f h is c on sti tut ion a l r ig ht t o a jur y of tw e lve , a

nd on ly tw e lve , ju

ro rs . T EX . C O N ST . art. V, § 13. F urther, he contends allowing the alternate juror to remain with the jury vi ol ate s art ic le 36 .2 2’ s p ro hib iti on that no on e is p e rm itt e d to be pr e se nt w hil e the jur y is deliberating. T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 36.22 (V ernon 2006)
.04
- 07
- 00 64 3- CR, 04
- 07
- 00 64 4- CR a n d 0 4- 07
- 00 64 5- CR

1 Pr i or t o t h e a me n dm e n t t o a r t i c l e 33
. 01 1( b) , t h e a l t e r n a t e w a s di s mi s s e d p r i or t o d e l i be r a t i on s , a n d i f a j u r or be c a me u n a b le o r d isq u a lif

ie d to se rv e the re a fter , a j u ry c o u ld c o n tinu e d e lib e ra tio n s w ith e le v e n m e m b e rs o n ly i f b o th th e sta te a n d the d e fen se a g re e d . T EX . C O D E C R IM . P R OC . A NN . art . 3 6. 29 (V er non 20 06 )
. I f t hey d i d not bot h a gr ee, a mi s t r i al w a s d e c la re d re su lti n g in w a ste d ti m e a n d e x p e n se .

- 7- The State c ontends the pre sence of the a lternate j u ror wa s not a violation under the Te x as Constit ution, nor was it a viol ation of articles 33.01, 33.011, and 36.22. T EX . C O N ST . art. V, § 13; T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . arts. 33.01, 33.011, and 36.22 (Ve rnon 2006). The State a lleg es the prese nce of

the alter nate was permitted by the amende d version of the statute to e nsure that twe lve qualified juror s would be in the jury room to rende r a verdict. I n addition, the State points out that twelve juror s did, in fact, re nder the verdic t in this case and sig n the same. B. Statutory Constr uction The best evidenc e of leg islative intent is the lang uag e of t h e s t at ute. Bo

y k in v . S tat e , 818 S.W .2d 782, 78 5 (T ex . Crim. App. 1991). We may g o behind the statutory

text only if the statute is ambiguous or

if the ap p l i ca t i o n of the statute’ s plain lang uag e would lea d to an absurd result t h at t h e leg islature could not possibly have intende d. Id . T he pla in l angua g e of a rt ic le 33.011(b) make s clea

r that an alternate juror should not be dismissed until after the jury has re ndere d
a ver dict and punis h m en t h as b een assessed. T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 33.011(b) . The statute, howeve r, f

ai l s to address the r ole of the a lternate during deliberations and whether the alternate juror should par ticipate in deliber ations. Of int e re st, ho we ve r, is the state me nt o f l e g isl a tiv e in ten t regar din g H. B . 1 08 6. Th e bil l
ana ly sis of

H. B . 1 08 6 e xpla ins the e xten sio n o f t he a lte rn a te ’s se rv ic e to v e rd ic t was ne e de d to pr e ve nt m istri a ls that oc c ur when a jur or

be c ome s d isq

ua lif ie d a ft e r t

he jur y ha s b e g un

its deli b er at i o n s . House Rese arc h Org ., Bill Analy sis, Tex . H.B . 1086, 80th L eg ., R.S. (2007). 1 I mmediately p ri or to the passa g e of the bill in t he House , Represe ntative Mac ias asked04
- 07
- 00 64 3- CR, 04
- 07
- 00 64 4- CR a n d 0 4- 07
- 00 64 5- CR

- 8- Re pr e se ntativ e Hu g he s if the int e nt wa s that the a lte rn a te wh o did no t re pla c e a re g ula r j ur or re fr a in from par ticipating in a

ny juror deliber ations in the case . Represe ntative Hug hes re sponded: Yes, sir. As you know, only the 12 ju ro rs wh o are seate d as re g ular juror s may participate i n any

jury deliberations. My

intent is for alternate jurors who do not re pla c e a re g ula

r jur or to no t pa

rt ic ipate in a

ny de lib e ra tio ns - - wh e the r t

hat be g uil t or i nnocenc e or punishment – and tha t the c ourt wo uld

dire c t the

alt e rna te juro rs to b ese para ted from the

re gul ar juro rs a nd t

o r e fr ain from de lib e ra ting

or discussing the case unless they are seate d as a r eg ular juror
. Texas House Journal, Tex. H.B. 1086, 80th L eg ., R.S., 83rd L eg . Day (2007) ( emphasis adde d). C. Ana lys is The Te x as Constitut ion does not authorize more than twelve juror s to serve on a jury . T EX . C O N ST . a rt . V , § 13 . T o avo id a

c on fl ic t w ith th e Co ns tit uti on , th e State argue s th a t th e a lte rn a te juror is not considere d a juror. Howeve r, such an alternate would then be c onsidered a n outsider and run af oul of article 36.22. T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . a rt 36 .2 2 ( Ve rn on

20 06 ). Ar

tic le 36 .2 2 p ro vid e s: “No pe rson shall be permitted to be with a jury while i t is deliberating . No per son shall be per mitted to conver se with a juror

about the ca se on trial ex cept in the presence and by the per mission of the court.” Id
. “The purpose of this statute is to preserve the conf identiality

of the jury ’s deliber ations
so that the jurors may

fully and fr eely

discuss the ca se.” Ro

jas v . S tat e , 1 7 1 S. W. 3 d 4 4 2 , 4 5 0 ( T e x. App.—Houston [14th Dis t.] 2005, pet. re f’d)
. We conclude that the Texas Consti tution precludes the de liberation of more than t we lve jurors. T EX . C O N ST . art. V, § 13. I f t he alternate is not considere d a juror, the n the par ticipation of the alter nate in deliber ations violates articl e 3 6
. 22’s prohibition ag ainst outside influence . T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN art. 36.22 (V ernon 2006). The trial court, there fore , err ed in dir ectingthe alternate juror to par

ticipate in jury

deliberations. Having deter mined err or, we next conduct a har m ana ly sis
.04
- 07
- 00 64 3- CR, 04
- 07
- 00 64 4- CR a n d 0 4- 07
- 00 64 5- CR

- 9- H A R M A N A L Y SIS A. Texas Rule of Ap pellate P roce dure 44.2 Rul e 44 .2 (a ) c a te g or ize s the re vie w of e rr or s in a c ri min a l c a se int o tw o g e ne ra l c a te g or ie s: co n s t i tutional error s and non-c onstitut ional err ors. T EX . R. A PP . P
. 4 4
. 2
. W i t h r e g a rd to
c on sti tut ion a l e rr or s, if

the e rr or is a str uc tur a l c on sti tut ional erro r, the n th e e rr or is r e ve rs ibl e without a harm analy sis. T EX . R. A PP . P. 4 4. 2( a ); Cai n v. Sta te , 9 47 S.W. 2d 26 2, 26 4 ( Te x. Cr im. A p p . 1 9 9 7 ) ( s u

p e r c e d e d b y s t a tu t e o n o t h e r g r o u n d s )
. O n t h e o t h e r h an d , i f t h e e rr or is a nonstructura l, constituti onal er ror, a n appellate court must reve rse the tr ial court i f i t fails to find bey ond a rea sonable doubt that the err or did not contribute to the judg ment. T EX . R. A PP . P. 44.2(a). All other er

rors, de fec ts , irregularities or va rianc es that do not aff

ect the substantial r ights of a defe ndant ar e disreg arde d. T EX . R. A PP . P. 44.2(b). As previously

deter mined, the rig ht to a twelve- member jur y is gua rante ed by

Article V , Section 13 of the Te x as Constitut ion and ar ticle 33.01 of the Te x as Co d e o f C ri m i n al P roce dure. T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . a rt . 3 6. 22 (V e rn on

20 06 ); T EX . C O N ST . art. V, § 13. Be cause we do not disting uish be tween a def endant’ s rig ht to a jury

trial and his rig ht to a twelve- person jury , the
erro r in this c a se wa s a

c on sti tut ion a l e rr or

re qu ir inga

de te rm ina

tio n o f w he the r t

he e rr or is structura l or non structura l a nd thus is subject to ha

rmless err or revie w. T EX . R. A PP . P. 4 4. 2( a ); see als o Lo we ry

v . S tat e , 974 S.W .2d 936, 941 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1998, no pe t.). Structural e rror s are c on sti tut ion a l vi ola

t i o n s “ a f f e c tin g the fr a me wo rk

wi thi n w hic h th e tr ia l pr oc e e ds , r a the r t ha n s imp ly
an er ror in the tria l proce ss itself.” Ar izo na v . F ulm ina nte , 4 99 U. S. 2 79 , 3 10 (1 99 1) ; se e als o Cai n , 947 S.W .2d at 2 6 4 (dete rmining that constituti onal er rors not subject to har

m analy sis are limited to “ce rtain fede ral constitutional e rror s labeled by the United States Supreme Court as ‘ structura l’”).04
- 07
- 00 64 3- CR, 04
- 07
- 00 64 4- CR a n d 0 4- 07
- 00 64 5- CR

- 10- Be cause the er

ror pr esente d has not be en labeled structura l, w e hold that allowing a n alternate juror to be prese nt in the jury room during the jury deliberations is a non-structural, c onstitut ional err or su bje c t to a ha rm ana ly sis
. B. Har m Ana lys is Her e, althoug h the trial cour t instructed the alter

nate to “g o with the twelve membe rs of the jury into the jury

room for the deliberations but y ou will not be voting,” the rec ord is silent as t o any eff ect the a lternate juror had on the jury deliberations. Cf. Bo gu e v . S tat e , 204 S.W .3d 828, 829-30 (Tex. App.—Texarkana

2006, pet. ref

’d) (testimony of alternate juror and jury fore man conf

irmed
a lte rn a te jur or ’s pr e se nc e in court r oo m f or a pe ri od of fi ve to t hir te e n mi nu te s d id n ot c on sti tut e ha rm ); Rojas , 171 S.W .3d at 450-51 (te stimony of the juror s and the a lternate juror re butted any alleg ations of har

m resulting f

rom alternate juror r emaining in the jury room during deliberations for f ifteen minutes). H ere , the trial cour t simpl y instructed the a lternate juror to be pr esent during deliberations, but not to vote. Cf. Un i t ed S t ates v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 739 (1993) (pr esenc e of alternate juror in jury deliberations was viewed i n light of trial court’s instructions that “ac cording to the law, the a lternate s must not participate in the deliber ati ons . . . [W ]e are g oing to a sk [t he alternate] that y ou not participate ” and thus did not prejudice defe ndant). According ly , we c annot conclude , bey ond a re asonable d o u b t , t h at t he alter nate juror ’s pre sence in the jury room did not contribute to the conviction or puni shment. We, there fore , reve rse the tr ial court’s judg ments and
re mand thi s matte r t o th e tr ia l c ourt fo r f ur the r p ro c e e din g s. Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice PUB L I SH