William McGehee v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 52nd District Court of Coryell County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 10th District Court of Appeals » 2004 » William McGehee v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 52nd District Court of Coryell County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 10-03-00280-CR

Case Date: 11/10/2004

Plaintiff: William McGehee

Defendant: The State of Texas--Appeal from 52nd District Court of Coryell County

Preview:William McGehee v. The State of Texas--Appeal from
52nd District Court of Coryell County
IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-03-00280-CR
William McGehee,
Appellant
v.
The State of Texas,
Appellee
From the 52nd District Court
Coryell County, Texas
Trial Court # FSA-02-16575
MEMORANDUM Opinion
This appeal involves the constitutionality of Rule 606(b) of the Texas Rules of Evidence. William McGehee was
indicted for indecency with a child. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. 21.11 (Vernon 2003). The jury found McGehee guilty,
assessed punishment at two years, and recommended community supervision.
After the verdict, McGehee filed a motion for new trial in which he alleged, inter alia, jury misconduct. The motion
was supported by an affidavit by juror Darla Matthys. On the hearing on the motion, the State objected that, under
Rule of Evidence 606(b), Matthys could not testify about jury deliberations. The trial court sustained the objection, but
allowed McGehee to tender the affidavit, as well as letters by five other jurors, as offers of proof. In her affidavit,
Matthys states that, while the jurors were deadlocked on guilt/innocence, they discussed what punishment would be
given in the event that the jury found McGehee guilty. Matthys stated that she believed McGehee to be innocent.
Letters from three of the other jurors state that an agreement on punishment was reached before guilt/innocence was
decided.
On appeal, McGehee argues that Rule of Evidence 606(b) is unconstitutional and conflicts with Rule of Appellate
Procedure 21.3(g), in that it denied McGehee a fair and impartial trial, and that the trial court therefore erred in
denying his motion for new trial. Rule 606(b) precludes a juror from testifying as to any matter or statement occurring
during the jury s deliberations, but permits testimony as to improper outside influence upon any juror or to rebut a
claim that a juror was not qualified to serve. Tex. R. Evid. 606(b). Rule 21.3(g) provides that a new trial must be
granted when the jury has engaged in such misconduct that the defendant did not receive a fair and impartial trial. Tex.
R. App. P. 21.3(g).
Although the Court of Criminal Appeals has not squarely addressed the issue, our courts of appeal have upheld Rule
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/6036.html[8/20/2013 7:19:54 PM]

606(b) s constitutionality under Texas and federal constitutional provisions. E.g. Glover v. State, 110 S.W.3d 549, 552
(Tex. App. Waco 2003, pet. ref d); Richardson v. State, 83 S.W.3d 332, 362 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi 2002, pet. ref
d); Hicks v. State, 15 S.W.3d 626, 630 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. ref d); Hines v. State, 3 S.W.3d 618,
622 (Tex. App. Texarkana 1999, pet. ref d); Sanders v. State, 1 S.W.3d 885, 888 (Tex. App. Austin 1999, no pet.). The
Texas Supreme Court has upheld the rule s constitutionality in the civil law context. Golden Eagle Archery, Inc. v.
Jackson, 24 S.W.3d 362 (Tex. 2000). The United States Supreme Court rejected a claim under the Sixth Amendment
right to a fair jury trial that Federal Rule 606(b), the federal counterpart to Texas Rule 606(b), is unconstitutional.
Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107, 127, 107 S.Ct. 2739, 2751, 97 L.Ed.2d 90 (1987); Fed. R. Evid. 606(b). The
Fifth Circuit has held that Federal Rule 606(b) does not violate a civil defendant s due process right to a fair and
impartial jury. Maldonado v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co., 798 F.2d 764, 770 (5th Cir. 1986). McGehee s contention that
Rule 606(b) conflicts with Rule of Appellate Procedure 21.3 has likewise been rejected. Hines, 3 S.W.3d at 622 (Rules
606(b) and 21.3 work together to define jury misconduct and how it may be proved; Rule 606(b) is more specific in
defining jury misconduct and is thus controlling over 21.3).
Following the holdings in these cases and the public policy reasons stated therein, we hold that application of Rule
606(b) did not violate McGehee s constitutional right to a fair and impartial trial. The trial court did not err in ruling
the juror affidavit inadmissible under Rule 606(b) or in denying McGehee s motion for a new trial.
Conclusion
Having overruled the issue, we affirm the judgment.
BILL VANCE
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Vance, and
Justice Reyna
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed November 10, 2004
Do not publish
[CR25]
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/6036.html[8/20/2013 7:19:54 PM]

Download 6036.pdf