Reversed and Remanded and Majority and Dissenting Opinions filed August 29, 2019. In the Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-17-00785-CR ZAID ADNAN NAJAR, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 338th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1503083 MAJORITY OPINION The ultimate issue in this appeal concerns whether the jury followed the trial court’s charge: “During your deliberations in this case, you must not consider, discuss, nor relate any matters not in evidence before you. You should not consider nor mention any personal knowledge or information you may have about any fact or person connected with this case which is not shown by the evidence.” As a society, we generally balance the need for confidentiality in jury deliberation versus the integrity of the jury trial in favor of jury confidentiality. We also generally presume the jury follows the court’s charge. This appeal presents a rare instance in which what occurred during deliberation is open for review. And because the uncontroverted evidence is the jury did not follow the court’s charge and considered outside evidence that was adverse on a critical issue, we must reverse. A jury found appellant Zaid Adnan Najar guilty of the third-degree felony of fleeing, using a vehicle, from a peace officer who was attempting lawfully to detain him. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 38.04(a), (b)(2)(A).1 The trial court assessed punishment at ten-years imprisonment, suspended the sentence, and placed appellant on four-years community supervision. In two issues, appellant asserts the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial based on (1) other evidence received by the jury during deliberation and (2) a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding his trial counsel’s advice on the immigration consequences of the State’s plea offer. Because we find the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion for new trial, we reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand the case for further proceedings.2 1 Vernon’s Texas Codes Annotated Penal Code contains an editorial note which suggests that the legislature has enacted two versions of Penal Code section 38.04(b)(1), (2). While this is not a contested issue in this appeal, and we make no explicit holding, it nonetheless appears that only one version of subsection 38.04(b)(1), (2) exists. See Act of May 23, 2011, 82d Leg., R.S., ch. 391, § 1, 2011 Tex. Gen. Laws 1046, 1046, amended by Act of May 24, 2011, 82d Leg., R.S., ch. 839, § 4, 2011 Tex. Gen. Laws 2010, 2011, amended by Act of May 27, 2011, 82d Leg., R.S., ch. 931, § 3, 2011 Tex. Gen. Laws 2321, 2322. 2 A defendant’s general right to appeal under Code of Criminal Procedure article 44.02 has always been limited to appeal from a “final judgment.” State v. Sellers, 790 S.W.2d 316, 321 n.4 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). Although appellant argues the trial court’s error was in denying his motion for new trial, we may only reverse the judgment being appealed and not merely the order denying ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals