Under former OCGA § 9–10–9, the affidavits of jurors could be received only to sustain, not impeach, their verdict. An exception existed in criminal cases in which “compelling personal interests of life and liberty” were implicated. Riddle v. Beker, 232 Ga.App. 393, 501 S.E.2d 893 (1998). But since the trial of this case occurred after January 1, 2013, the relevant statutory provision regarding post-verdict juror testimony is now found in OCGA § 24–6–606(b):
Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Kelletts' motion for new trial. Riddle v. Beker, 232 Ga. App. 393, 394 ( 501 SE2d 893) (1998).Perryman v. Rosenbaum, 205 Ga. App. 784, 787 (3) ( 423 SE2d 673) (1992).
Riddle v. Beker.Riddle v. Beker, 232 Ga. App. 393, 394 ( 501 S.E.2d 893) (1998). Foster filed a civil action against Newson for personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident.
Under these circumstances, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Economic a new trial, and we therefore will not upset the trial court's determination. Riddle v. Beker, 232 Ga. App. 393, 394 ( 501 S.E.2d 893) (1998). Compare Leonard v. Owen, 125 Ga. App. 5(1) ( 186 S.E.2d 506) (1971).
(b) Further, had the issue been properly preserved by timely motion for new trial and passed upon by the trial court after evidentiary hearing into the allegations of jury misconduct, jurors cannot impeach their verdict, unless Sixth Amendment rights under the Federal Constitution are involved, which did not occur in this case. OCGA § 9-10-9; Riddle v. Beker, 232 Ga. App. 393 ( 501 S.E.2d 893) (1998); Lozynsky v. Hairston, 168 Ga. App. 276 ( 308 S.E.2d 605) (1983). The exceptions to this statute apply only in criminal cases in "certain very limited occasions where human life or liberty sways in the balance.