Court Opinion

ID: 9691561
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 20:39:43.486393+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:21.966807
License: Public Domain

JAN P. PATTERSON, Justice,
dissenting.
Because service on a jury by a disqualified juror does not automatically mandate a new trial, and the district court — after a hearing — determined that Preiss failed to meet his burden of showing (i) due diligence and (ii) harm, I would uphold the district court’s judgment.1 For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.
The question before the Court is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying appellants’ first amended motion for new trial. “It is well established that the grant or denial of a motion for new trial is within the discretion of the trial court.” State v. Read, 965 S.W.2d 74, 77 (Tex.App.—Austin 1998, no pet.). Appellate review of a trial court’s determination to grant or deny a motion for new trial is conducted under an abuse of discretion standard. State v. Gonzalez, 855 S.W.2d 692, 693-94 (Tex.Crim.App.1993). A trial judge’s ruling on a motion for new trial is presumed to be correct. See Simon v. York Crane & Rigging Co., 739 S.W.2d 793, 795 (Tex.1987); Lee v. State, 167 Tex.Crim. 608, 322 S.W.2d 260, 262 (App.1958). Therefore, reversal is appropriate “only when the trial judge’s decision was so clearly wrong as to lie outside that zone within which reasonable persons might disagree.” Bocquet v. Herring, 972 S.W.2d 19, 21 (Tex.1998); Cantu v. State, 842 S.W.2d 667, 682 (Tex.Crim.App.1992). A trial court does not abuse its discretion merely because a reviewing court would reach a different conclusion. Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, 701 S.W.2d 238, 241-42 (Tex.1985). So long as the trial court’s action was not without reference to guiding principles and rules of law, it should be sustained. Id.
*296Here, the trial court’s ruling is supported by the record. A hearing on the matter was held and the court determined that Preiss failed to meet his burden of either due diligence or harm. The record reveals that, other than what was contained in the juror questionnaire, Preiss did not ask a single question of Garcia. Under the deferential abuse of discretion standard, then, the district court can be said to have had sufficient basis to conclude that the duty of due diligence was not met. Additionally, because Garcia was mistakenly under indictment and such charges were immediately dropped upon being brought to the Travis County Attorney’s attention, sufficient support exists to uphold the trial court’s determination that Preiss was not harmed. These facts require this Court to affirm the trial court.
At the outset, the majority concedes that this is not a juror misconduct case. Instead, the analysis focuses on the consequences of a juror’s failure to disclose information on a juror questionnaire. This distinction is significant because, absent certain specifically enumerated grounds for which a new trial must be granted, see Tex.R.App. P. 21.3, a trial court has broad discretion to grant or deny a motion for new trial, see Lewis v. State, 911 S.W.2d 1, 7 (Tex.Crim.App.1995); see also Reyes v. State, 849 S.W.2d 812, 814-15 (Tex.Crim.App.1993). Where a juror unintentionally misrepresents or omits information, a new trial is appropriate only where the movant establishes a material injury. Jones v. State, 596 S.W.2d 134, 137 (Tex.Crim.App.1980).
The majority summarily concludes that Preiss was materially injured as a matter of law by relying on the supreme court’s per curiam opinion in Palmer Well Services, Inc. v. Mack Trucks, Inc. ., 776 S.W.2d 575 (Tex.1989). This determination is significant because unless Preiss sustained his burden of showing the trial court that he exercised due diligence — that he satisfied his “obligation to ask questions calculated to bring out that information which might be said to indicate a juror’s inability to be impartial, truthful, and the like” — reversal is not warranted. Jones, 596 S.W.2d at 137. The trial court determined that Preiss failed to demonstrate materiality. Unlike the parties in Palmer, here the issue of due diligence has not been conceded. For this reason, the present case is distinguishable from Palmer. Recognizing this distinction, the majority nevertheless relies on Palmer to conclude that “it is beyond dispute that Preiss is similarly situated to Palmer Well Services [and therefore w]e must hold that Preiss was materially injured as a matter of law.” Because Preiss established only that Garcia’s questionnaire contained a misrepresentation or omission, he faded to carry his burden of establishing either harm or due diligence, both required by Palmer. By incorrectly assuming Preiss was similarly situated to Palmer, the majority erroneously determines Preiss was materially injured as a matter of law.
Since Palmer, this Court has specifically addressed the effect of service by an absolutely disqualified juror on two occasions. See State v. Read, 965 S.W.2d 74, 76 (Tex.App.—Austin 1998, no pet.); Hernandez v. State, 952 S.W.2d 59, 71 (Tex.App.—Austin 1997), vacated on other grounds by 957 S.W.2d 851 (Tex.Crim.App.1998). Hernandez involved a case where a prospective juror was specifically asked during voir dire whether she had been convicted of theft. Hernandez, 952 S.W.2d at 70. She answered “No.” Id. After trial it was discovered that a misdemeanor theft complaint was on file in the county clerk’s office, alleging theft by check of more than $20 but less than $200. Id. Hernandez argued that as a matter of law service of a disqualified juror constituted significant *297harm. Id. at 71. This Court rejected Hernandez’s argument. Id.
We recognized that the juror could not have been “said to have withheld information or given a misleading answer because she was not then aware of the theft complaint.” Id. at 70: Similarly, in the present case, it is undisputed that Garcia was not aware of her pending misdemeanor theft complaint.2 While the majority argues that “[t]here is no reason to believe that had additional questions been asked, Garcia would have responded differently[,]” here, as in Hernandez, there is no dispute that follow-up questions would not have elicited a different response from Garcia. That she was unaware of any pending charges makes it likely that, regardless of what question was asked regarding the pending charges, her answer would have been the same. Inasmuch as the test set forth by Hernandez is a subjective one, specifically, whether the prospective juror was subjectively truthful in answering questions presented during voir dire or on a questionnaire, the application and determination of the test is best left to the district court’s discretion. Because the majority acknowledges that Garcia answered truthfully and was not aware of the pending charge, the district court cannot be said to have erroneously determined that Garcia withheld information that would disqualify her from service.
Even assuming Garcia was statutorily disqualified, in Hernandez we rejected the contention that service by an automatically disqualified juror mandates a new trial. Id. at 71. We stated that when the presence of an absolutely disqualified juror is not discovered or brought to the attention of the trial court until after the verdict is entered, the defendant is entitled to a new trial only if he demonstrates that the juror’s service caused him significant harm beyond the mere fact of conviction.
Id. Finding Hernandez made no attempt to show harm beyond his conviction, this court overruled his point of error. Id. Because Preiss points us to no evidence of harm other than an adverse verdict, this issue should be overruled.
Just one year after Hernandez, in a case with identical facts as here, this Court again addressed the issue of juror disqualification. See State v. Read, 965 S.W.2d 74 (Tex.App.—Austin 1998, no pet.). In Read, the juror failed to disclose his criminal history, despite specific inquiries both on a juror questionnaire and during voir dire. Id. at 76. The juror was given a card containing the question: “Have you ever been an accused, complainant or witness in a criminal case?” Id. The juror responded “No.” Id. After trial, it was discovered that the juror had indeed been convicted of misdemeanor theft. Id. The movant timely filed a motion for new trial, the court conducted a hearing, and a new trial was granted. Id. The State appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in granting Read a new trial. Id.
Analyzing the trial court’s ruling on the motion for new trial using an abuse of discretion standard, we reaffirmed the principles set forth in Hernandez. Id. at 77-78. This Court noted that conviction alone “does not establish the sort of *298‘significant harm’ required” under a due diligence analysis. Id. at 77. More importantly, we extensively discussed the standard of review appropriate for a motion for new trial and determined that, absent an arbitrary or unreasonable ruling, the trial court should be affirmed. Id. at 77-78.
The majority justifies its result by distinguishing our prior holdings in Hernandez and Read as nonbinding criminal cases. The majority treats criminal and civil juror disqualification cases differently for purposes of article 44.46, while at the same time recognizing that “section 62.102 prescribes qualifications for jurors in civil and criminal cases.” No other court has drawn that distinction. When confronted with an analogous question, the court of criminal appeals declined that distinction. See Mayo v. State, 4 S.W.3d 9, 12 (Tex.Crim.App.1999). Instead, the court of criminal appeals recognized that when there are two provisions concerning the same subject matter, they should be construed in a manner giving effect to both. Id. at 11. Here, that means not creating separate standards for civil and criminal cases.
This Court recognized that article 44.46 was a legislative response to the court of criminal appeals’ aberrational decision in Thomas v. State, 796 S.W.2d 196 (Tex.Crim.App.1990). See Hernandez, 952 S.W.2d at 69. In Thomas, the court held that “service by an absolutely disqualified juror was an error that could not be waived and that required a new trial without a showing of harm.” 796 S.W.2d at 198-99. Instead of creating a new standard for criminal cases, the legislature’s enactment of article 44.46 corrected the result in Thomas — the same result the majority reaches today — of creating separate criminal and civil standards.
In the present case, although the majority correctly states the standard of review, they then overstep their bounds by “tip[ping] the balance in favor of Preiss.” As discussed in Hernandez and reaffirmed in Read, our job is not to determine whether the trial court came to, what is in our estimation, the “right” conclusion. Rather, we are to review the record and determine whether the trial court’s decision was arbitrary or unreasonable. This decision unfortunately provides an impetus for post-verdict investigation of jurors. The majority today creates an incentive for counsel to wait until after a verdict is rendered to investigate jurors, thereby rewarding counsel for lack of diligence. If a disqualified juror is found to have participated in the verdict, the majority’s decision has created an automatic ground for a new trial, regardless of the trial judge’s findings of harm and diligence. Additionally, the majority’s opinion raises the disturbing question of why it should be easier to obtain a new trial in a civil case than in a criminal case.
Because there is a legal basis upon which to uphold the lower court ruling, we are precluded from determining the trial court acted in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner. To hold otherwise, oversteps the bounds of appellate review under an abuse of discretion standard and undermines the jury’s verdict in this case, all while contravening the principles of stare decisis. For these reasons, I dissent.

. I also question whether the issue is properly before us. Because the district court’s initial judgment was final, the amended motion for new trial was untimely. See John v. Marshall Health Servs., 44 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1183, 58 S.W.3d 738(2001); North E. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Aldridge, 400 S.W.2d 893 (Tex.1966); Kalteyer v. Sneed, 837 S.W.2d 848 (Tex.App.—Austin 1992, no writ).

. The record reveals that, pursuant to an agreement with the Travis County Attorney, criminal theft charges against Garcia would not be filed if she attended a financial management class. Despite attending the class and submitting proper proof of completion, the State filed the theft charges against Garcia forming the basis of this appeal. After the trial in the present case concluded and the theft charges were discovered, Garcia brought the clerical error to the State's attention and all charges were dropped.