Ala. Code
Code of Alabama

Ala. Code § 12-16-15 (2026)

Polling of Jurors and Proceedings Thereupon.

✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaAla. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

When a verdict is entered in either a civil or criminal case and before it is recorded, the jury may be polled, on the requirement of either party, in which case they must be asked severally if it is their verdict; and, if any answer in the negative, the jury must be sent out for further deliberation.

(Code 1852, §653; Code 1867, §4205; Code 1876, §4910; Code 1886, §4484; Code 1896, §5308; Code 1907, §7317; Code1923, §8699; Code 1940, T. 30, §101.)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1985–2009 · leading case: Keener v. Jeld-Wen, Inc., 206 P.3d 403 (Cal. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Keener v. Jeld-Wen, Inc., 206 P.3d 403 (Cal. 2009). “) 13 ( Ala. Code § 12-16-15 [if, upon polling, “any [jurors] answer in the negative, the jury must be sent out for further deliberation”]; Ark.”
Ex Parte Morris, 465 So. 2d 1180 (Ala. 1985). · cites it 2× “(2) The trial judge, under the mandate of Code 1975, § 12-16-15, and prior precedents, was duty bound to send the jury back for further deliberations once he determined, upon polling the jury, that the verdict returned was not the verdict of one of the jurors.”
Ex Parte Davis, 548 So. 2d 1041 (Ala. 1989). · cites it 2× “1981), that after a § 12-16-15, Code 1975, poll of a jury that reveals a juror or jurors who express misgivings with their verdict, the party moving for mistrial bears the burden of first moving for further deliberations before a mistrial motion can be considered.”
Alabama Power Co. v. Epperson, 585 So. 2d 919 (Ala. 1991). · cites it 2× “” Ala.Code 1975, § 12-16-15, allows the jury to be polled for the sole purpose of determining if the written verdict returned is the verdict that was intended, i.”
Rahman v. State, 510 So. 2d 279 (Ala. Crim. App. 1987). · cites it 2× ““Now, I can only say to you thank you very much for your very careful deliberations. Off the record, Walter.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.