Pena-Rodriguez v. People

Colorado Supreme Court · 2015 · Evidence

350 P.3d 287 (Colo. 2015)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceJuror impeachmentJury deliberationsSixth AmendmentCRE 606(b)juror affidavitsracial biasextraneous prejudicial information

Facts

During trial, no impaneled juror indicated racial bias in response to general fairness questions during voir dire. After the verdict, two jurors gave affidavits stating that juror H.C. said petitioner was guilty because he was Mexican, that Mexican men take what they want from women, that in H.C.'s experience Mexican men were often aggressive toward women and girls, and that petitioner's alibi witness was not credible because he was 'an illegal.' Petitioner sought a new trial based on these affidavits. The trial court denied relief, concluding that CRE 606(b) barred inquiry into those deliberation statements.

Issue

Does CRE 606(b) bar juror affidavits describing racially biased statements made by a juror during deliberations, and if so, does the Sixth Amendment nevertheless require admission of those affidavits to protect the defendant's right to an impartial jury?

Rule

CRE 606(b) prohibits juror testimony about any matter or statement occurring during jury deliberations when offered in an inquiry into the validity of the verdict, unless one of the rule's narrow exceptions applies. The 'extraneous prejudicial information' exception covers legal content and specific factual information learned from outside the record and relevant to the case, not a juror's personal beliefs, general knowledge, or everyday experiences, including racial bias arising from those sources. Excluding such juror testimony under CRE 606(b) does not violate the Sixth Amendment because the jury system contains other safeguards for protecting impartiality.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

After a burglary trial in Phoenix, Daniel Ortiz is convicted. Two jurors later sign affidavits stating that, during deliberations, another juror said Daniel was probably guilty because "people from his neighborhood are always thieves" and that his sister's dating history made him distrust men like Daniel.

If Daniel moves for a new trial relying only on those affidavits, how should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority held that Rule 606(b) broadly bars juror testimony about statements made during deliberations when offered in a proceeding seeking to invalidate the verdict. A juror's bias drawn from personal beliefs, general knowledge, or everyday experience is an internal matter, not "extraneous prejudicial information." So affidavits recounting such deliberation statements are inadmissible.