§635-29 Challenging peremptorily. (a) In addition to the challenges of jurors allowed in section 635-28, the State and defendant in criminal cases shall be allowed peremptory challenges as provided by section 635-30.
(b) In civil cases each party shall be allowed to challenge peremptorily three jurors, without assigning any reason therefor. Where there are two or more plaintiffs or two or more defendants, they may be considered as a single party for the purposes of making peremptory challenges, or the court may allow additional peremptory challenges and permit them to be exercised separately or jointly. If additional peremptory challenges are allowed to the parties on one side, the opposing party or parties may be allowed additional peremptory challenges.
(c) If an alternate juror or alternate jurors are to be impaneled, one or more additional peremptory challenges shall be allowed as provided by the rules of court. [L 1903, c 38, §20; RL 1925, §2418; am L 1927, c 39, §1; am L 1932 1st, c 11, §1; RL 1935, §3736; RL 1945, §10112; RL 1955, §231-12; HRS §635-29; am L 1972, c 89, §2B(j)]
Rules of Court
Peremptory challenges in criminal cases, see HRPP rule 24(b).
Sequence for challenging jurors, see RCC rule 17(f).
Case Notes
Where four joint defendants joined in each of ten challenges, held that they had exercised their full right of challenge, although each would have been allowed ten challenges if taken separately. 3 H. 90 (1869).
Erroneous overriding of an objection to a juror by court avails nothing to the party objecting if party has not exhausted party's peremptory challenges. 8 H. 339 (1892).
Prejudicial if accused compelled to exhaust peremptory challenges. 23 H. 792 (1917).
Defendant's right to one peremptory challenge to alternate jurors under HRPP rule 24(c) is a right pertaining to all the alternate jurors and therefore defendant shall not be called upon to exercise the challenge until all potential alternate jurors have been examined and passed on challenges for cause. 79 H. 165 (App.), 880 P.2d 217 (1994).
Denial of defendant's statutory right to peremptorily challenge alternate jurors resulted in improper impaneling of alternate juror and was plain error. 82 H. 499 (App.), 923 P.2d 916 (1996).
Discussed: 86 H. 214, 948 P.2d 1055 (1997).
See 9 H. 522 (1894); 11 H. 293 (1898).
Copyright ©2024 LegalFix. All rights reserved. LegalFix is not a law firm, is not licensed to practice law, and does not provide legal advice, services, or representation. The information on this website is an overview of the legal plans you can purchase—or that may be provided by your employer as an employee benefit or by your credit union or other membership group as a membership benefit.
LegalFix provides its members with easy access to affordable legal services through a network of independent law firms. LegalFix, its corporate entity, and its officers, directors, employees, agents, and contractors do not provide legal advice, services, or representation—directly or indirectly.
The articles and information on the site are not legal advice and should not be relied upon—they are for information purposes only. You should become a LegalFix member to get legal services from one of our network law firms.
You should not disclose confidential or potentially incriminating information to LegalFix—you should only communicate such information to your network law firm.
The benefits and legal services described in the LegalFix legal plans are not always available in all states or with all plans. See the legal plan Benefit Overview and the more comprehensive legal plan contract during checkout for coverage details in your state.
Use of this website, the purchase of legal plans, and access to the LegalFix networks of law firms are subject to the LegalFix Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.