SCRE 606

(a) At the Trial. A member of the jury may not testify as a witness before that jury in the trial of the

case in which the juror is sitting. If the juror is called so to testify, the opposing party shall be afforded

an opportunity to object outside the presence of the jury.

(b) Inquiry Into Validity of Verdict or Indictment. Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or

indictment, a juror may not testify as to any matter or statement occurring during the course of the

jury's deliberations or to the effect of anything upon that or any other juror's mind or emotions as

influencing the juror to assent to or dissent from the verdict or indictment or concerning the juror's

mental processes in connection therewith, except that a juror may testify on the question whether

extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury's attention or whether any

outside influence was improperly brought to bear upon any juror. Nor may a juror's affidavit or

evidence of any statement by the juror concerning a matter about which the juror would be precluded

from testifying be received for these purposes.

Note:

The language of this rule is identical to the federal rule. Subsection (a) of this rule

changes the law in South Carolina in two regards. First, while prior law allowed a juror

to testify as to venue, State v. Vari, 35 S.C. 175, 14 S.E. 392 (1892) (juror allowed to

testify as to isolated, particular matter such as value or venue but not as to general

facts and circumstances of the offense), this subsection would prohibit such

testimony. Second, the prior law did not require that the party opposing the calling of

a juror as a witness be given an opportunity to object outside the presence of the jury.

Subsection (b) is consistent with the general rule that a juror may not present

testimony as to the deliberations in the jury room; as to any mistake, irregularity, or

misconduct on the part of the jurors; or which would impeach the verdict or contradict

the record. Barsh v. Chrysler Corp., 262 S.C. 129, 203 S.E.2d 107 (1974); State v. Wells,

249 S.C. 249, 153 S.E.2d 904 (1967); Caines v. Marion Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 196 S.C.

502, 14 S.E.2d 10 (1941). An affidavit of a juror has been admitted on a post-trial

motion "with great hesitation" when there was an allegation that a party had

attempted to influence the juror. Cohen v. Robert, 33 S.C.L. (2 Strob.) 410 (1848). The

rule is also consistent with South Carolina cases holding that no one may invade the

secrecy of a grand jury's deliberations. State v. Sanders, 251 S.C. 431, 163 S.E.2d 220

(1968); Margolis v. Telech, 239 S.C. 232, 122 S.E.2d 417 (1961).