that: “[T]he fact that this ended in a mistrial has [nothing] to do with the issues before this Court today.” Because the trial court did not determine whether Kriho’s action, in obtaining the sentencing information from the Internet, constituted a violation of the specific instructions given by the court, or constituted extraneous prejudicial information within the meaning of CRE 606(b), we do not address the issue involving Kriho’s use of the Internet. Nor do we determine whether there was a basis for admitting any evidence of deliberations pursuant to CRE 606(b). It is also unclear whether CRE 606(b) would apply to a mistrial or is limited to verdicts. Colorado has not addressed the issue and there is a split of authority in other jurisdictions. See Witherspoon v. Arkansas, supra (<HOLDING>); hut see Bays v. Petan Co., supra
holding that right to testify not denied where inter alia defendant made no objection to his attorneys statements that defendant would not testify and made no request to testify holding that a witness could testify about statements made to him by a police department investigator because the statements were an admission by partyopponent and were thus not excluded by the hearsay rule holding that rule 606b contains no exception for racially biased statements made during jury deliberations and expressing skepticism about whether constitutional concerns can ever override the rule holding that the trial court did not err in allowing a witness to testify regarding the child victims hearsay statements prior to the child testifying because ocga  24316 allows testimony about a childs outofcourt statements even in cases when the child does not appear as a witness as long as the child is available at the trial to testify holding that the arkansas counterpart to cre 606b applies whether a verdict is reached or a mistrial declared and under the extraneous information exception allows jurors to testify about statements made during deliberations