effect of anything on any juror’s mind or emotions or mental processes, as influencing any juror’s assent to or dissent from the verdict or indictment.” Id. But the rule provides an exception permitting a juror to testify “whether any outside influence was improperly brought to bear upon any juror.” Id. Under Rule 606(b), the telephone call received by juror Aguilera is not, as a matter of law, an outside influence that affected the validity of the verdict; it was a personal pressure on juror Aguilera to end the deliberations so that he could be with his daughter, not information or evidence obtained from outside the jury room or courtroom that influenced juror Aguil-era’s belief of whether or not Appellant was guilty. Compare McQuarrie v. State, 380 S.W.3d 145, 154 (Tex.Crim.App.2012) (<HOLDING>), and Jennings v. State, 107 S.W.3d 85, 90
holding statute stating that judge could excuse jurors was violated when jury commissioners excused jurors holding that the fortress theory was applicable where it reasonably appeared that the gun was used to protect the drugs given that the drugs and firearm were found in the same location holding that defendant who was a passenger in a car had joint constructive possession of drugs found next to the defendants luggage in truck of car even where she disclaimed ownership of the drugs holding that the date of the federal indictment not the date of the state arrest was the triggering date for the speedytrial act holding in case where defendant allegedly used date rape drugs to effectuate rape of complainant that jurors athome internet research on date rape drugs that was relayed to the jury the next morning was outside influence so that jurors testimony and affidavits were admissible at motion for new trial hearing alleging jury misconduct