A. A jury for trial of a criminal case in which a sentence of death or imprisonment for thirty years or more is authorized by law shall consist of twelve persons, and the concurrence of all shall be necessary to render a verdict.
B. A jury for trial in any court of record of any other criminal case shall consist of eight persons, and the concurrence of all shall be necessary to render a verdict.
C. Until January 1, 2023, the presiding judge of the superior court in the county may order that a jury for trial in any court of record of a civil case shall consist of either six persons, and the concurrence of all but one shall be necessary to render a verdict or eight persons, and the concurrence of all but two shall be necessary to render a verdict. Beginning on January 1, 2023, a jury for trial in any court of record of a civil case shall consist of eight persons, and the concurrence of all but two shall be necessary to render a verdict.
D. In a court not of record, a jury for trial of any case shall consist of six persons. The concurrence of all in a criminal case and all but one in a civil case shall be necessary to render a verdict.
E. The parties in a civil case, and the parties with the consent of the court in a criminal case, may waive trial by jury, or at any time before a verdict is returned consent to try the case with or receive a verdict concurred in by a lesser number of jurors than that specified above.
F. Unless the parties waive trial by jury pursuant to subsection E of this section, in a civil action brought by or on behalf of the state for a violation of a statute that declares an act or practice unlawful, a jury shall determine liability, wilfulness and the amount of any available monetary remedies, including restitution, disgorgement and civil penalties.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
185
cases (
54 in the last 5 years), 1942–2026 · leading case:
State v. Maldonado, 78 P.3d 1060 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
State v. Maldonado, 78 P.3d 1060 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 6× “Twelve-Person Jury ¶ 10 The dispositive issue is whether, as she argues, Maldonado was entitled by *342 Article 2, section 23 of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. § 21-102(A) to have her case decided by a twelve-person jury because she faced a maximum possible sentence of…”
State v. Soliz, 219 P.3d 1045 (Ariz. 2009).
· cites it 5× “” ¶ 7 In the same session in which it referred the amendment of Article 2, Section 23 to the people, the legislature conditionally passed a statute, now codified at A.R.S. § 21-102 (2002), that provided for eight-person juries in all eases but those in which twelve jurors were…”
State v. Escobedo, 213 P.3d 689 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 12× “A jury for trial of a criminal case in which a sentence of death or imprisonment for thirty years or more is authorized by law shall consist of twelve persons, and the concurrence of all shall be necessary to render a verdict. B. A jury for trial in any court of record of any…”
State v. Paris-Sheldon, 154 P.3d 1046 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 3× “See A.R.S. § 21-102(B). The court decided, over Paris-Sheldon’s objection, that “it’s an eight-person jury by law, and based on a miscalculation by the Court and counsel I’m not inclined to let four more people sit on the case.”
State v. Fancy, 676 P.2d 1134 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 6× “After the evidence had been presented to an eight person jury, but prior to the jury's deliberation, defendant's counsel discovered that A.R.S. § 21-102(A) and the Arizona Constitution require a trial by a twelve person jury in any criminal case in which a sentence of death or…”
MacConnell v. Maricopa Cnty. Med. Soc'y, 724 P.2d 591 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 12× “The three-fourths requirement is also set forth in Rule 49(a), Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that if 12 jurors have been empaneled to try an action, at least nine of the jurors must concur to render a verdict.”
State v. Dixon, 622 P.2d 501 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 21-102, Arizona Constitution Art.”
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Superior Court, 7 P.3d 970 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 6× “49(a) (“When eight jurors have been impaneled to try the action, and if there has been no stipulation as provided in Rule 48 entered in the minutes of the trial as provided by A.R.S. § 21-102, the concurrence of six or more jurors shall be sufficient to render a verdict therein.”
State v. Luque, 829 P.2d 1244 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 4× “II, § 23; A.R.S. § 21-102(A); e.g., Henley, 141 Ariz.”
State v. Uriarte, 981 P.2d 575 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 4× “2, § 23; A.R.S. § 21-102(A) (1990). ¶ 26 Conceding that there is a statutory maximum term of imprisonment of 27 years for sexual conduct with a minor, A.”
State v. Henley, 687 P.2d 1220 (Ariz. 1984).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 21-102(A). Also, we look to the possible cumulative sentences in each case and not just the possible sentence for each count or charge.”
State v. Benenati, 52 P.3d 804 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “II, § 23; A.R.S. § 21-102(A); see also State v. Smith, 197 Ariz.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 21-102(A) — 76 cases
State v. Maldonado, 78 P.3d 1060 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
“Twelve-Person Jury ¶ 10 The dispositive issue is whether, as she argues, Maldonado was entitled by *342 Article 2, section 23 of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. § 21-102(A) to have her case decided by a twelve-person jury because she faced a maximum possible sentence of…”
State v. Fancy, 676 P.2d 1134 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983).
“After the evidence had been presented to an eight person jury, but prior to the jury's deliberation, defendant's counsel discovered that A.R.S. § 21-102(A) and the Arizona Constitution require a trial by a twelve person jury in any criminal case in which a sentence of death or…”
State v. Escobedo, 213 P.3d 689 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
“A jury for trial of a criminal case in which a sentence of death or imprisonment for thirty years or more is authorized by law shall consist of twelve persons, and the concurrence of all shall be necessary to render a verdict. B. A jury for trial in any court of record of any…”
State v. Luque, 829 P.2d 1244 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992).
“II, § 23; A.R.S. § 21-102(A); e.g., Henley, 141 Ariz.”
State v. Uriarte, 981 P.2d 575 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
“2, § 23; A.R.S. § 21-102(A) (1990). ¶ 26 Conceding that there is a statutory maximum term of imprisonment of 27 years for sexual conduct with a minor, A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 21-102(B) — 61 cases
State v. Paris-Sheldon, 154 P.3d 1046 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“See A.R.S. § 21-102(B). The court decided, over Paris-Sheldon’s objection, that “it’s an eight-person jury by law, and based on a miscalculation by the Court and counsel I’m not inclined to let four more people sit on the case.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 21-102(C) — 4 cases
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Superior Court, 7 P.3d 970 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).
“49(a) (“When eight jurors have been impaneled to try the action, and if there has been no stipulation as provided in Rule 48 entered in the minutes of the trial as provided by A.R.S. § 21-102, the concurrence of six or more jurors shall be sufficient to render a verdict therein.”
MacConnell v. Maricopa Cnty. Med. Soc'y, 724 P.2d 591 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
“The three-fourths requirement is also set forth in Rule 49(a), Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that if 12 jurors have been empaneled to try an action, at least nine of the jurors must concur to render a verdict.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 21-102(E) — 3 cases
MacConnell v. Maricopa Cnty. Med. Soc'y, 724 P.2d 591 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
“The three-fourths requirement is also set forth in Rule 49(a), Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that if 12 jurors have been empaneled to try an action, at least nine of the jurors must concur to render a verdict.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 21-102(F) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.