Court Opinion

ID: 9773635
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:52:15.552767+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:55.603051
License: Public Domain

*596OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
PRESLAR, Chief Justice.
The State has filed a motion for rehearing challenging this Court’s decision to sustain Appellant’s contention of jury misconduct.
The initial basis for this motion is an assertion that the evidence in support of Appellant’s motion for new trial was not timely introduced. Judgment was entered on August 7, 1980, and Appellant sentenced on September 24, 1980. On August 15, he filed his original motion for new trial. With leave of court, he filed an amended motion on September 3, which was timely under former Article 40.05 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A two-part hearing was conducted on September 15 and 22. The State asserts that this “presentation” was therefore not made within ten days of the filing of the amended motion. This was not raised as an objection at the time of the hearing, probably because the participants knew first-hand what we have deduced from a 1980 calendar. The tenth day after filing, September 13, fell on a Saturday. Thus, the September 15, Monday, hearing was timely. The hearing was recessed at the request of the Appellant due to the nonavailability of several jurors, including Mr. Brown, the foreman. Appellant expressly advised the court of the time limits of Article 40.05 before requesting recess. Rather than object, the State agreed to the recess, expressing a desire to call Mr. Brown on behalf of the State. On September 22, both sides presented testimony from former jurors. The trial court overruled Appellant’s motion in a timely manner. Thus, the presentation of the motion did not operate to delay either the determination of the motion or the filing of the record on appeal, in accordance with the final strictures of former Article 40.05.
The State’s second challenge to our decision asserts that Appellant failed to demonstrate harm resulting from the jury misconduct. In the recent case of Munroe v. State, 637 S.W.2d 475 (Tex.Cr.App.1982), Judge Roberts attempted unsuccessfully to resolve the previous multiplicity of standards utilized in appellate review of this type of jury misconduct. Consequently, we still have two possible standards: receipt of other evidence under Article 40.03(7) and jury misconduct under Article 40.03(8). There is no question that the evidence would not support reversal under the five-prong test utilized under Article 40.03(7). For that reason our analysis and initial result was based upon the two-part test of jury misconduct: (1) was there misconduct; (2) did it result in harm.
Munroe establishes that any discussion of parole law is jury misconduct. A majority of the Court of Criminal Appeals further stated that if even a single juror votes for a harsher sentence as a result of the misconduct then the defendant has been harmed. In essence the State is arguing for the strictest, narrowest meaning of “as a result,” that is “but-for” causation or sole cause, excluding any form of concurrent or contributory causation. The cases cited by the State present a spectrum of phraseology. In Austin v. State, 531 S.W.2d 615 (Tex.Cr.App.1975), and Ashabranner v. State, 557 S.W.2d 774 (Tex.Cr.App.1977), the appellants failed to show that the improper discussion “caused” the higher sentence. In Sweed v. State, 538 S.W.2d 119 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), reversal resulted where one juror testified the discussion “caused” him to vote for a higher sentence. In discussing the affirmed cases, the Munroe opinion summarizes them as failures in showing the juries were “affected” by the discussion of parole. “Affected” does not have a limited connotation of sole cause. Similarly in Sanders v. State, 580 S.W.2d 349, 353 (Tex.Cr.App.1978), a conviction was reversed because the parole discussion adversely “affected” two jurors’ considerations. In the present case, Juror Peddy testified that the parole discussion made it “easier” for him to vote for a higher sentence. This may have been in response to an unobjected-to leading question but was unequivocally affirmative in tenor. Unlike hearsay testimony, the answer has probative value. In Munroe, itself, one juror *597testified that the parole discussion “allowed” him to vote for a harsher penalty, We perceive no significant distinction between the effect on Juror Peddy and the effect on the Munroe juror. We further find that parole discussion which has a contributory or concurrent effect on a juror’s decision constitutes harm and necessitates reversal.
The State further asserts that Appellant’s point of error should not be sustained because the parole discussion only affected Peddy’s vote for ten years and not the ultimate verdict of twenty. Peddy’s first vote was for five years. This was followed by the parole discussion. On the second paper ballot, Peddy voted for ten years and, on the third ballot, for twenty years. The State’s argument is tantamount to an assertion that a faulty building foundation caused the collapse of the first ten floors, but not floors eleven through twenty.
Next, we find the State’s contention that Peddy’s testimony was not competent to be without merit. Such a finding in Daniels v. State, 600 S.W.2d 813 (Tex.Cr.App.1980) was due to the fact that the four jurors who testified were addressing the collective feelings and states of mind of all twelve jurors. Furthermore, they were testifying as to discussions of leniency and reasonable doubt. Both topics are within the proper scope of jury deliberation and not a proper basis for impeaching a verdict. In the present case, Peddy testified only as to the effect the parole discussion had on him. The topic of parole is forbidden and constitutes misconduct. It is a proper subject for post-verdict inquiry, and Peddy’s testimony was competent.
The State’s final challenge contends that the evidence as to jury misconduct was in conflict, to be resolved by the judge as factfinder, and to be reviewed only in terms of abuse of trial court discretion. The evidence is not significantly in conflict. Numerous jurors confirmed that the question of parole came up. Several recalled one juror responding that parole could occur upon completion of one-third of the sentence. Several jurors testified that they did not hear the response, but no one testified that it did not take place. Peddy’s testimony as to the effect the discussion had on his vote was of course unrefuted, In this case, the evidence clearly dictated the need for a new trial,
The motion ⅛ rehearing ⅛ hereby de-njg(j