Robert D. Walsh v. State of Tennessee

Summary

The Tennessee Supreme Court held that Tennessee Rule of Evidence 606(b) prohibits juror testimony concerning the effect of an improper court-officer communication on a juror's deliberative processes. The communication itself established a presumption of prejudice, and the State failed to rebut that presumption with admissible evidence. The court reversed the Court of Criminal Appeals and remanded for a new trial.

Holdings

1. The State waived its own waiver argument by failing to raise the defense in the post-conviction court, thereby depriving Walsh of an opportunity to rebut the statutory presumption of waiver.
2. Tennessee Rule of Evidence 606(b) permits juror testimony to establish the fact that extraneous information or improper outside influence occurred, but it prohibits juror testimony concerning the effect of that information or influence on the juror's deliberative processes, thoughts, motivations, or emotions.
3. The State failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice because the only evidence offered to show harmlessness was inadmissible testimony from the juror concerning the effect of the court officer's statement on her decision-making.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the State waived its argument that Walsh waived the improper-influence claim by failing to raise it in his direct appeal.
2. Whether Tennessee Rule of Evidence 606(b) permits a juror to testify about the effect of extraneous information or an improper outside influence on the juror's deliberative process.
3. Whether the improper communication created a presumption of prejudice that the State sufficiently rebutted with admissible evidence.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded