Court Opinion

ID: 9770934
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:25:47.294641+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:22.706578
License: Public Domain

WOODLEY, Judge,
dissenting.
The state excepted to the motion for new trial because it was not supported by the affidavit of a juror, pointing out that the matters being such as could have transpired only in the jury room, were necessarily hearsay as to appellant and his counsel. The motion shows on its face that as to the attorney the matters were hearsay.
The trial court heard the evidence adduced in support of the allegations and overruled the motion. It does not appear that such order was entered on the state’s exception. Appellant made no effort to explain or excuse his failure to furnish affidavit from a juror or other person who was in position to know the facts regarding what transpired in the jury room.
Valdez v. State, 157 Texas Cr. Rep. 363, 248 S.W. 2d 744, cited to the trial court in support of the state’s exception, and the following decisions of this court hold that the affidavit of some person in position to know the facts is essential. Clay v. State, 157 Texas Cr. Rep. 32, 246 S.W. 2d 180; Allala v. State, 157 Texas Cr. Rep. 458, 250 S.W. 2d 207; Hicks v. State, 158 Texas Cr. Rep. 45, 251 S.W. 2d 409; Moore v. State, 155 Texas Cr. Rep. 147, 232 S.W. 2d 711; Henderson v. State, 154 Texas Cr. Rep. 376, 227 S.W. 2d 821; Hughes v. State, 106 Texas Cr. Rep. 550, 293 S.W. 575.
Other cases refer to a failure to show the source of information of the affiant, name the informant, or allege that the statement was made by a juror, but lay down the same rule. Vyvial v. State, 111 Texas Cr. Rep. 111, 10 S.W. 2d 83; Toms *646v. State, 150 Texas Cr. Rep. 264, 200 S.W. 2d 174; Vowell v. State, 156 Texas Cr. Rep. 493, 244 S.W. 2d 214; Fielden v. State, 152 Texas Cr. Rep. 597, 216 S.W. 2d 198.
In Prince v. State, 158 Texas Cr. Rep. 320, 254 S.W. 2d 1006, in the quotation appearing in Presiding Judge Morrison’s opinion, we pointed out that the affidavit of a juror was not the exclusive method by which misconduct of the jury occurring in the jury room might be raised, and said:
“Where the appellant is unable to secure such an affidivit, it is incumbent upon him to show this, and why, and, further, to show reasonable grounds for believing that such misconduct actually occurred.”
Appellant did not bring himself under this exception to the rule when he alleged that the information came to his attorney from conversations with two named jurors. He wholly failed to comply with the rule stated in all of the cases cited, which requires that the affidavit of a juror be secured; or to bring himself within the exception mentioned in the Prince case, which makes it incumbent upon him to show that he is unable to secure such affidavit, and why, as well as to show a reasonable ground for believing that the misconduct alleged actually occurred.
The state’s exception should have been sustained and appellant required to conform to the rule stated or bring himself within the exception.
Under the authorities cited, the action of the court in overruling the motion for new trial should be upheld as within the discretion of the trial judge, the pleading not being sufficient to raise the question of the receipt of evidence by the jury during their deliberations. If the cases are to be overruled by my brethren, they should so state in order that the bar be informed.
I respectfully enter my dissent.