Ex parte Vaughn, relied on by C.D., did indeed conclude that ยง 12-16-150(4) represents "an implementation of the fair and impartial trial guarantee of Art. I, Sec. 6, of our State Constitution," 395 So.2d at 96, as that constitutional provision relates to a relationship between a juror and the victim in a criminal case, but that provision of the Alabama Constitution explicitly applies only to criminal prosecutions. Moreover, as the Court of Criminal Appeals explained in Vaughn v. State, 395 So.2d 97, 102 (Ala.Crim.App. 1980), following this Court's remand in Ex parte Vaughn: "[T]he rationale of permitting a challenge for cause of a juror who is related to a party, or to an injured or deceased victim of an alleged crime, is to be found solely in the fact that if and when, but only if and when, the juror is aware of the relationship there is some danger of bias by reason of the relationship." As we did in Crawford Broadcasting Co., we conclude that, under the peculiar circumstances of this case, the information C.D. seeks from A.B. involves "a highly sensitive subject" and "when `patently irrelevant,' is such a personal and private matter that compelling its production would clearly constitute harassment."
" ' " Parish v. State, 480 So.2d 29, 31 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985), quoting Brown v. State, 392 So.2d 1248 (Ala.Cr.App. 1980), cert. denied, 392 So.2d 1266 (Ala. 1981); see also, Vaughn v. State, 395 So.2d 97 (Ala.Cr.App. 1980). In analyzing the "probable prejudice" test, the trial court must consider a variety of factors, which may vary from case to case.
Therefore, there is no inherent prejudice attributed to a trial by a nonresident or nonresidents of the county in which the offense was committed.'"Vaughn v. State, 395 So.2d 97, 102 (Ala. Crim.App. 1980). Here, Chavers has shown no prejudice to his case caused by juror no. 216's service on the jury.
All Judges concur. Decision after remand, Ala.Cr.App., 395 So.2d 97.
All the Judges concur. Judgment reversed, Ala., 395 So.2d 95, on remand, Ala.Cr.App., 395 So.2d 96, decision after remand, Ala.Cr.App., 395 So.2d 97.