The opinion
PARKS, Presiding Judge,
specially concurring in results:
Although I have reached the same conclusion as to affirmance of the judgment and sentence, I feel it necessary to comment on the dilemma of the trial court in attempting to ascertain whether the jury had acted in violation of 22 O.S.1981, § 952(4). In its attempt, the trial court appears itself to have violated 12 O.S.1981, § 2606(B), which states a juror shall not testify about the jury’s deliberations. However, it is a well-established principle of statutory construction that when one statute speaks specifically to an issue of controversy, it takes precedence over a statute dealing with the same subject matter in general terms. C. Sands, Statutes and Statutory Construction, § 51.05 (1974). Therefore, in this case, the trial court did not err in admitting the testimony of some of the jurors at the hearing on the motion for a new trial, as there was no other way to determine whether the jury had, indeed, violated the statute against the drawing of lots to reach a verdict.