With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 527 So.2d 166, 168 n. 2 (Ala.Cr.App.1987) (a ground concerning an ex parte communication with a member of the jury raised in a motion for a new trial is untimely). Moreover, even if the issue had been adequately preserved, the trial judge’s communication with the jury did not amount to reversible error. See Ex parte Bankhead, 585 So.2d 112, 126 (Ala.1991) (an ex parte communication between a judge and a juror is harmless error when they do not discuss any fact in controversy or law applicable to the case). In fact, the trial judge’s substitution of a juror outside of the presence of the parties was harmless error. The trial judge considered the sudden serious illness of a child of one of the jurors to be an emergency. See Williams v. State, 27 Ala.App. 293, 171 So. 386, 389 (1936) (<HOLDING>). The trial judge responded to the situation by

A: holding a new trial required when juror is replaced by an alternate during jury deliberations
B: holding that rule 606b precludes a party seeking a new trial from using one jurors affidavit of what another juror said in deliberations to demonstrate the other jurors dishonesty during voir dire
C: holding that the defendant was not prejudiced when an ill juror after deliberations began left the other jurors accompanied by the trial judge to see a physician
D: holding that it was not error for the court to give a substantive new instruction to the jury after deliberations began where the instruction was given in court with the defendant and his counsel present
C.