Reyes Salazar v. The State of Texas

Summary

The Texas Thirteenth Court of Appeals considered whether the mistaken substitution of two alternate jurors for two regular jurors violated the appellant’s constitutional right to a twelve-person jury and Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 36.22. The court held that the substitution violated Article 33.011’s procedural requirements but did not violate the constitutional jury-size requirement or affect the appellant’s substantial rights. The court also upheld the denial of a motion for new trial, concluding that the proposed juror testimony was barred by Texas Rule of Evidence 606(b).

Holdings

1. The trial court erred under article 33.011 by replacing two regular jurors with alternate jurors without finding that the regular jurors were unable or disqualified to serve or obtaining the parties' agreement to the replacement, but the error did not violate Salazar's constitutional right to a twelve-person jury because the jury remained composed of twelve members.
2. Assuming that the alternate jurors' participation and the regular jurors' return to the deliberation room constituted outside influences and violated both prohibitions in article 36.22, the errors did not affect Salazar's substantial rights because the record did not show that outside information influenced the verdict.
3. The trial court did not reversibly err by refusing to allow the juror to testify about deliberations or by denying the motion for new trial because the proposed testimony concerned jurors' deliberative statements, votes, and mental processes, not an admissible outside influence or juror qualification issue, and was barred by Rule 606(b).

Questions Presented

1. Whether substituting two alternate jurors for two regular jurors without the finding or agreement required by Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 33.011 violated Salazar's constitutional right to a twelve-person jury.
2. Whether the jurors' mistaken participation, substitution, and return to the deliberation process violated Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 36.22 and affected Salazar's substantial rights.
3. Whether the trial court erred by refusing to allow juror testimony concerning deliberations and by denying Salazar's motion for new trial under Texas Rule of Evidence 606(b).

Disposition

affirmed