regard. V. The appellant’s fifth argument is that he was denied a fair trial because several jurors failed to disclose crucial evidence and because the jury improperly considered extraneous evidence. In relation to this claim, his entire argument in his petition consisted of the following: “During voir dire, several jurors failed to disclose critical evidence, despite unambiguous questioning. Additionally, the jury looked beyond the evidence and testimony presented at trial, and thereby denied Mr. Duncan a fair trial and reliable sentence. “... It has been long-recognized that a defendant is entitled to receive truthful answers from jurors, and when a juror fails to truthfully respond during voir dire, reversible error occurs. See State v. Gilbert, 568 So.2d 876 (Ala. Crim.App.1990) (<HOLDING>); Abercrombie v. State, 574 So.2d 879
holding that because the term conviction is ambiguous to lawyers judges and laymen the claimant did not commit misconduct when she wrote she had not been convicted of felony where adjudication had been withheld holding that where juror did not disclose that she had an interest in the conviction of the defendant probable prejudice is shown and the conviction must be reversed holding that a venire person who knew of the defendants prior conviction of the same offense for which he was being retried could not sit as a juror holding that remand for resentencing is appropriate when sentence for reversed conviction appears to have influenced trial courts sentence for the affirmed conviction holding that where a juror did not disclose that she knew someone who had been sexually abused the conviction and sentence must be reversed