Opinion ID: 1838753
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Jury Testimony

Text: Alabama Power asserts that, if this Court denies its request for a new trial on the above grounds, then this case should be remanded to allow it the opportunity to develop evidence regarding alleged extraneous facts considered by the jury during its deliberations. Specifically, Alabama Power contends that it was wrongfully denied the opportunity to question a juror during post-trial proceedings regarding either comments she allegedly made about Alabama Power's liability insurance or any individual ill will on her part toward Alabama Power. Alabama Power also contends that the trial court erred in striking the affidavit of a fellow juror that set forth the substance of those alleged comments. As a general rule, neither testimony nor affidavits are admissible to impeach a jury's verdict. Fabianke v. Weaver, 527 So.2d 1253 (Ala.1988); Wiberg v. Sadoughian, 514 So.2d 940 (Ala.1987). An exception to this rule exists when an affidavit tends to show extraneous facts that have influenced the jury's deliberations and the resulting verdict. Fabianke, supra . Affidavits, such as the one at issue here, concerning the debates and discussions of the case by the jury while deliberating thereon do not fall within the exception to the rule. Rather, statements that have been held admissible under this exception usually are made to the jury by someone not on the jury. Weekley v. Horn, 263 Ala. 364, 82 So.2d 341 (1955), cited in Fabianke, supra . Thus, the trial judge did not err in striking the affidavit of one juror and in refusing to allow another juror to be questioned during post-trial proceedings.