644 P.2d 763 (1982). In Hoff, we held that a juror’s affidavit stating that she “was sick with a cold during deliberation and that other jurors exerted pressure on her to vote to convict the defendant” could not be considered as grounds for a new trial because “[t]he effect of a juror’s illness and the claimed pressure by others inheres in the verdict and may not be used to impeach the verdict.” Hoff, 31 Wn. App. at 813 (citing State v. Forsyth, 13 Wn. App. 133, 138, 533 P.2d 847 (1975)). We stated, citing Gay, “Public policy forbids inquiries into the privacy of the jury’s deliberations.” Hoff, 31 Wn. App. at 813 (citing Gay, 82 Wash. at 439). Again, this is not a departure from or limitation on the holding in Gay. See also State v. Maxfield, 46 Wn.2d 822, 828, 285 P.2d 887 (1955) (<HOLDING>); Forsyth, 13 Wn. App. at 138-40 (holding that
holding that jurors concern that he was pressured into changing his mind could not impeach the verdict holding that to impeach a jury verdict the defendant must produce evidence that is both not barred by federal rule 606b and sufficient to prove grounds adequate to overturn the verdict holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in changing the wording in a verdict form after the jury was discharged when the change was not demonstrably prejudicial holding that the accused cannot impeach a verdict on the basis that the jury could not agree on the theory of firstdegree murder holding that plaintiff could not show that he was disabled because he conceded that he could do his job despite his impairment