RULE 24. TRIAL JURORS
(a) Examination of Jurors.
(1) Venire. The court may call for examination an initial venire of prospective jurors equal to the number of jurors necessary for the jury plus the number of peremptory challenges available to the parties. If, after the parties have exercised their challenges, the venire size is larger than
the number required under N.D.R.Crim.P. by Rule 23, the excess number of jurors will be excused in the inverse order in which they were called.
(2) Examination. The court
may allow singular examination of prospective jurors in chambers. The court shall must permit the defendant or the defendant's attorney and the prosecuting attorney to participate in the examination of prospective jurors. The court may allow individual examination of prospective jurors in chambers.
(1) Peremptory Challenges. Each side is entitled to:
(4) peremptory challenges when a six (6) person jury is to be impaneled; and
(6) peremptory challenges when a twelve (12) person jury is to be impaneled, except if when the offense charged is a AA felony, each side is entitled to ten (10) peremptory challenges.
If there is more than one defendant, the court may allow the defendants additional peremptory challenges and permit them to be exercised separately or jointly.
(2) Challenges for Cause.
(A) By the Court. If the
judge court, after examination of any juror, by the court or either side, is of the opinion finds that grounds for challenge for cause are present, the judge shall court must excuse that juror from the trial of the case.
(B) By a Party. If the
judge court does not excuse a juror for cause, any party may make a challenge the juror for cause. A challenge to an individual a juror must be made before the juror is sworn to try the case, unless the judge court permits it to be made after the juror is sworn but before jeopardy has attached.
(c) Alternate Jurors.
(1) In General. The court may
direct that not more than impanel up to four alternate jurors in addition to the regular jury be called and impaneled to sit as alternate jurors to replace any jurors who are unable to perform or who are disqualified from performing their duties.
(A) Alternate jurors
in the order in which they are called shall replace jurors who, prior to the time the jury retires to consider its verdict, become unable or disqualified to perform their duties. Alternate jurors shall be drawn in the same manner, shall have the same qualifications, shall be subject to the same examination and challenges, shall take the same oath, and shall have the same functions, powers, facilities and privileges as the regular jurors must have the same qualifications and be selected and sworn in the same manner as any other juror.
(B) Alternate jurors replace jurors in the same sequence in which the alternates were selected. An alternate juror who replaces a juror has the same authority as the other jurors.
(3) Release of Alternate Jurors. An alternate juror who does not replace a
regular juror shall must be discharged after the jury retires to consider its verdict.
(4) Peremptory Challenges. Each side is entitled to the number of additional peremptory challenges to prospective alternate jurors specified below. These additional challenges may be used only to remove alternate jurors.
(A) One or Two Alternates.
one One additional peremptory challenge is permitted in addition to those otherwise allowed by law if when one or two alternate jurors are to be impaneled ,.
(B) Three or Four Alternates.
and two Two additional peremptory challenges are permitted when if three or four alternate jurors are to be impaneled. The additional peremptory challenges may be used against an alternate juror only, and the other peremptory challenges allowed by these rules may not be used against an alternate juror.
Rule 24 was amended, effective January 1, 1988; March 1, 1990; ____________.
Rule 24 is an adaptation of Fed.R.Crim.P. 24, and is modified to conform to existing state practice. Rule 24
, N.D.R.Crim.P., is intended to insure that a defendant's Sixth Amendment guarantee of an "impartial jury" is protected. To implement this right to an impartial jury, Subdivision subdivision (a) permits an examination of prospective jurors to determine whether any juror is biased for or against either party, or whether any juror's status or views are such that bias may be inferred. Others may be challenged peremptorily, but the number of those challenges is limited by Subdivision subdivision (b). Subdivision (b) was amended, effective March 1, 1990. The amendments are technical in nature and no substantive change is intended.
Subdivision (a) was modified to allow the continuance of the present practice permitting the examination of jurors by opposing parties or their attorneys and by the court. This differs from the
Federal Rule federal rule, which gives the court discretion in determining whether it alone should examine prospective jurors or also allow the opposing parties to do so. Subdivision (a) was amended, effective January 1, 1988, to provide for a uniform jury selection process. However, this procedure is discretionary with the court. Subsection Paragraph (b)(1) follows existing State state law and maintains the number of peremptory challenges historically allowed. under N.D.C.C. § 29-17-31. (Challenges to prosecution and defendant.) The provision of Subdivision subdivision (b) which that allows additional peremptory challenges in trials with multiple defendants is was an innovation to the present of former practice.
Subsection paragraph (b)(1), a peremptory challenge is exercised by a party not in the selection but rather in the rejection of prospective jurors. A peremptory challenge is not aimed at disqualification but is exercised against a qualified trial juror as a matter of grace to the challenger. The right to peremptory challenges is afforded in aid of securing a fair and impartial jury. Subsection Paragraph (b)(2), regarding challenges for cause, is not in the Federal Rules federal rules. It is derived from N.D.C.C. § § 29-17-33 through 29-17-40, and A.B.A. Standards for Criminal Justice, Trial by Jury, § 2.5 (Approved Draft, 1968). This subsection is considered necessary to preclude any question that challenges for cause are a definite part of the examination of jurors. This Rule rule also obligates the judge to dismiss a juror if grounds for cause exist, thereby avoiding prejudicing other jurors against the attorneys.
Subdivision (c) is taken from the
Federal Rule federal rule and replaces N.D.C.C. § § 29-17-47 (Alternate jurors, selection--Procedure.) and 29-17-48 (Alternate jurors, oath--Duties.) replaced superseded statutes. This procedure avoids a mistrial whenever an alternate juror is substituted for a juror who has become disqualified by illness or otherwise before submission of the case to the jury. L. Orfield, Trial Jurors in Federal Criminal Cases [29 F.R.D. 43 at 46 (1962)], points out that the United States Supreme Court had asked the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules whether the Committee was satisfied as to the constitutionality of substituting an alternate juror after the jury had begun its deliberations.
Rule 24 was amended, effective ______________, in response to the December 1, 2002, revision of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The language and organization of the rule were changed to make the rule more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules.
SOURCES: Supreme Court Conference Minutes of January 17, 1990; September 28, 1987; Joint Procedure Committee Minutes of _____________, pages ___; April 20, 1989, page 4; December 3, 1987, page 15; May 21-22, 1987, pages 16-17; February 19-20, 1987, pages 19-20; October 17-20, 1972, pages 12-18; September 26-27, 1968, pages 11-13;
Supreme Court Conference Minutes of September 28, 1987, page 5457; Fed.R.Crim.P. 24 ; 29 F.R.D. 43, 46 (1962); Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure: Criminal, § 381-388 (1969); 8 Moore's Federal Practice, Chapter 24 (Cipes, 2d Ed. 1970); Barron, Federal Practice and Procedure: Criminal, § 2130-2136 (1951, 1967 pocket part); A.B.A. Standards for Criminal Justice, Standards Relating to Trial by Jury, § 2.5 (Approved Draft, 1968).
SUPERSEDED: N.D.C.C. §§ 29-17-27 to 29-17-29, 29-17-31, 29-17-32, 29-17-39, 29-17-40, 29-17-41, 29-17-42, 29-17-43, 29-17-47, 29-17-48, 29-21-35, 33-12-21.
CONSIDERED: N.D.C.C. §§ 29-17-01 to 29-17-15, 29-17-30, 29-17-33, 29-17-35, 29-17-36, 29-17-38, 29-17-44 to 29-17-46, 29-09.1-01 to 27-09.1-22.
CROSS REFERENCE: N.D.R.Crim.P. 23 (Trial by Jury or by Court).