Court Opinion

ID: 9771604
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:48:42.308458+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:33.700122
License: Public Domain

CADENA, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
The testimony at the motion for new trial raised only a fact issue as to whether the improper jury discussion was merely a passing reference and whether it influenced the outcome of the deliberations.
The evidence that an improper jury discussion took place is uncontroverted. However, evidence of the length and significance of the discussion is contradictory. During her testimony, juror Roman testified that the improper discussion lasted “three or four minutes” and contradicted herself as to whether appellant’s failure to testify affected her vote. Juror Covarrubi-as also presented contradictory testimony about the effect of the improper jury discussion.
Juror Duque stated that “two or three of the jurors” discussed appellant’s failure to testify but stated that no votes were changed as a result:
Q: Did anyone say whether their opinion might have been changed if he had taken the stand?
A: No, no it was only that one juror who brought that up. She said that she still wasn’t — that she hadn’t made her decision yet.
Where there is conflicting evidence, the trial court’s refusal to grant a motion for new trial is not an abuse of discretion. Carrillo v. State, 566 S.W.2d 902, 913 (Tex.Crim.App.1978).
I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.