to 10 delinquent accounts could not have reasonably misunderstood and failed to respond when asked the following question during voir dire: “Have any of you ever had a dispute with Huntsville Hospital about anything, a bill, a statement or anything about it?” (emphasis omitted; emphasis added)). Finally, we note that none of the alleged nondisclosed matters was either a wrongful-death or medical-malpractice case; thus, there is no factual similarity between any of those allegedly nondisclosed matters and the present case. Moreover, there is nothing indicating that the prospective jurors’ alleged failure to respond was something other than the product of faulty memory, inadvertence, or a mere misunderstanding. See Burroughs Corp. v. Hall Affiliates, Inc., 423 So.2d 1348, 1352 (Ala.1982) (<HOLDING>). Without such an indication, there is nothing
holding questions meant to expose jurors bias and tendencies permitted during voir dire holding that the jurors failure to remember particular facts inquired about on voir dire and the jurors misunderstanding of voir dire questions do not constitute probable prejudice holding that there was no indication that the questions on voir dire were ambiguous or that the jurors failure to respond was inadvertent and concluding that the nondisclosed matters were material holding that the extent to which parties may examine prospective jurors on voir dire lies within the trial judges discretion holding that defendants have a right to be present at voir dire