In Como v. State, 557 S.W.2d 93 (Tex.Crim.App. 1977), after two mistrials, the defendant "renewed" his pretrial motions and called the court's attention to one motion in particular. The trial court commented that it had ruled on the motion before and that the same motion applied. Id. at 94. Some cases have recognized that the effect of a mistrial is similar to the granting of a new trial. See Awadelkariem v. State, 974 S.W.2d 721, 724 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998). a new trial may be granted when the jury has engaged in such misconduct that the defendant did not receive a fair and impartial trial. TEX. R. APP. P. 21.3(g). Allegations of jury misconduct must be supported by affidavit. See Kiser v. State, 788 S.W.2d 909, 915 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1990, pet. ref'd). However, effective March 1, 1998, under rule 606(b) of the rules of criminal evidence, a juror may only testify to outside influences that affected the verdict. See TEX. R. CRIM. EVID. 606(b); See also In re. S.P., 9 S.W.3d 304 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1999, no pet.); Hines v. State, 3 S.W.3d 618, 621 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1999, pet. ref'd); Sanders v. State, 1 S.W.3d 885, 887 (Tex. App.-Austin 1999, no pet.).