detention of the person of another for any length of time whereby he or she is deprived of his or her personal liberty. See Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-170. The jury heard sufficient evidence from which it could have found that Matthew unlawfully detained Elizabeth for various periods during which she was deprived of her personal liberty. Therefore, Matthew was not entitled to a judgment as a matter of law as to that claim, the trial court did not err in charging the jury as to that claim, and the jury verdict was not tainted by any award of compensatory or punitive damages based on that claim. Matthew is simply incorrect in asserting that this case falls within the rule set out in Aspinwall v. Gowens, 405 So.2d 134 (Ala.1981). See Alfa Mut. Ins. Co. v. Roush, 723 So.2d 1250, 1257 (Ala.1998) (<HOLDING>). Quotient Verdict Matthew finally complains
holding that a criminal defendant convicted by a jury on one count cannot attack that conviction because it was inconsistent with the jurys verdict of acquittal on another count citations omitted recognizing this court will uphold a general verdict if evidence on any one count issue or theory sustains the verdict citations omitted holding that the verdict must be sustained if there is any competent evidence to support the verdict holding that under aspinwall when the trial court submits to the jury a good count  one that is supported by the evidence  and a bad count  one that is not supported by the evidence  and the jury returns a general verdict this court cannot presume that the verdict was returned on the good count in such a case a judgment entered upon the verdict must be reversed holding that after court dismissed case at plaintiffs request notwithstanding the fact that jury had deliberated upon the case and indicated that it had reached a verdict there was no case pending in court on which a verdict could be predicated and the information which the judge got from an inspection of the petition handed to him by the foreman of the jury was information which he received as an individual and not as a judge of the court and further holding that despite violation of defendants right to receive the verdict that was purportedly reached the writing incorporated in the bill of exceptions as a verdict of the jury was in law no verdict because it was not received in court and published as required by law and was instead entirely extraneous and extrajudicial