right of peremptory challenge (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

right of peremptory challenge in California

9 California opinions name it 2 courts 1930–2024 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (6)

CaseFollowedCited
Pointer v. United Statesgreen
scotus · 1894 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 2006–2016
2 sentences

2016There, we explained that “[a]lthough knowledge of the composition of the entire panel can be relevant to the exercise of a peremptory challenge against an individual juror, the fact that a particular procedure used might have made exercising initial peremptory challenges less informed does not in itself require reversal. [Citation.] [¶] A court commits reversible error if its procedures deny a party’s right of peremptory challenge.” (Ibid., italics added; see Pointer v. United States (1894) 151 U.S. 396, 412 [ 38 L.Ed. 208 , *868 14 S.Ct. 410 ] [“The right of peremptory challenge ... is not of

2016There, we explained that “[a]lthough knowledge of the composition of the entire panel can be relevant to the exercise of a peremptory challenge against an individual juror, the fact that a particular procedure used might have made exercising initial peremptory challenges less informed does not in itself require reversal. [Citation.] [¶] A court commits reversible error if its procedures deny a party’s right of peremptory challenge.” (Ibid., italics added; see Pointer v. United States (1894) 151 U.S. 396, 412 [ 38 L.Ed. 208 , *868 14 S.Ct. 410 ] [“The right of peremptory challenge ... is not of

22
Ross v. Oklahomagreen
scotus · 1988 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1989–1989
2 sentences

1989(See Ross, supra, 487 U.S. at p. 88 [ 101 L.Ed.2d at p. 90 , 108 S.Ct. at p. 2278 ].) Since defendant did not claim that any of the 12 jurors who heard the case were subject to challenge for cause, or were not impartial, his right to an impartial jury was not abridged.

1989(See Ross, supra, 487 U.S. at p. 88 [ 101 L.Ed.2d at p. 90 , 108 S.Ct. at p. 2278 ].) Since defendant did not claim that any of the 12 jurors who heard the case were subject to challenge for cause, or were not impartial, his right to an impartial jury was not abridged.

11
People v. Edwardsgreen
cal · 1894 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1966–1966
2 sentences

1966In People v. Edwards (1894) 101 Cal. 543, 544 [ 36 P. 7 ], the California Supreme Court declared: “The right of peremptory challenge is one of the chief safeguards of a defendant against an unjust conviction, and courts ought to permit the freest exercise of this right within the limits fixed by the legislature. ’’ Notwithstanding such distinguished ancestry and respected career, neither the United States Constitution nor the Constitution of California in their respective provisions securing to the accused his right to trial by jury (U.S. Const., 6th Amend.; Cal. Const., art.

1966In People v. Edwards (1894) 101 Cal. 543, 544 [ 36 P. 7 ], the California Supreme Court declared: “The right of peremptory challenge is one of the chief safeguards of a defendant against an unjust conviction, and courts ought to permit the freest exercise of this right within the limits fixed by the legislature. ’’ Notwithstanding such distinguished ancestry and respected career, neither the United States Constitution nor the Constitution of California in their respective provisions securing to the accused his right to trial by jury (U.S. Const., 6th Amend.; Cal. Const., art.

11
People v. Diazgreen
calctapp · 1951 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1955–1955
2 sentences

1955This rule was reannounced as late as July 27th, 1951 in the case of People v. Diaz, 105 Cal.App.2d 690, 696 [ 234 P.2d 300 ] (hearing denied by this court without dissenting vote) where the District Court of Appeal said: "The denial of the right of peremptory challenge cannot be said to be a mere matter of procedure.

1955This rule was reannounced as late as July 27th, 1951 in the case of People v. Diaz, 105 Cal.App.2d 690, 696 [ 234 P.2d 300 ] (hearing denied by this court without dissenting vote) where the District Court of Appeal said: "The denial of the right of peremptory challenge cannot be said to be a mere matter of procedure.

11
People v. Helmred
cal · 1907 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1951–1951
1 sentence

1951(People v. Helm, 152 Cal. 532, 535 [ 93 P. 99 ].) It is a substantial right.

11
Silcox v. Langgreen
cal · 1889 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1951–1951
2 sentences

1951(People v. Jenks, 24 Cal. 11, 13 ; People v. Ah You, 47 Cal. 121, 122 ; People v. Kohle, 4 Cal. 198 ; People v. Montgomery, 53 Cal. 576 ; Silcox v. Lang, 78 Cal. 118, 123 [ 20 P. 297 ].) [6] Respondent contends that section 4 1/2 of article VI of the Constitution applies and that the error was not prejudicial.

1951(People v. Jenks, 24 Cal. 11, 13 ; People v. Ah You, 47 Cal. 121, 122 ; People v. Kohle, 4 Cal. 198 ; People v. Montgomery, 53 Cal. 576 ; Silcox v. Lang, 78 Cal. 118, 123 [ 20 P. 297 ].) [6] Respondent contends that section 4 1/2 of article VI of the Constitution applies and that the error was not prejudicial.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (9)

CaseCitedYears
People v. Contreras green
cal · 2013
1 sentence

2024(Id. at p. 538.) In People v. Contreras (2013) 58 Cal.4th 123 , the defendant contended voir dire was inadequate because the trial court had not “question[ed] every prospective juror either individually or collectively about general principles of law concerning both the standard and burden of proof, and the presumption of innocence.” (Id. at pp. 142-143.) The Supreme Court stated, “Unless the voir dire ‘is so inadequate that the reviewing court can say that 15 the resulting trial was fundamentally unfair, the manner in which voir dire is conducted is not a basis for reversal.’ [Citations.]” (I

12024–2024
United States v. Jacques Blouin green
ca2 · 1981
1 sentence

2006(People v. Wright, supra, 52 Cal.3d at pp. 397-398; see also Pointer v. United States (1894) 151 U.S. 396, 408-409 [ 38 L.Ed. 208 , 14 S.Ct. 410 ]; United States v. Blouin, supra, 666 F.2d at p. 797 .) But defendant here was not prohibited from exercising all of his allotted peremptory challenges; indeed, he exercised them all.

12006–2006
People v. Wright red
cal · 1990
1 sentence

2006(People v. Wright, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 397 .) A court commits reversible error if its procedures deny a party’s right of peremptory challenge.

12006–2006
Austin v. Lambert green
cal · 1938
2 sentences

1959As to judicial prerogative, Austin v. Lambert (1938), 11 Cal.2d 73 [ 77 P.2d 849 , 115 A.L.R 849], invalidated Code of Civil Procedure, section 170.5, which gave a party to an action the right of peremptory challenge of a judge assigned to try or hear the case.

1959As to judicial prerogative, Austin v. Lambert (1938), 11 Cal.2d 73 [ 77 P.2d 849 , 115 A.L.R 849], invalidated Code of Civil Procedure, section 170.5, which gave a party to an action the right of peremptory challenge of a judge assigned to try or hear the case.

11959–1959
People v. Bugg green
calctapp · 1947
2 sentences

1951(People v. Bugg, 79 Cal.App.2d 174 [ 179 P.2d 346 ], also cited by respondent is likewise not in point.

1951(People v. Bugg, 79 Cal.App.2d 174 [ 179 P.2d 346 ], also cited by respondent is likewise not in point.

11951–1951
People v. Jenks neutral
cal · 1864
2 sentences

1951(People v. Jenks, 24 Cal. 11, 13 ; People v. Ah You, 47 Cal. 121, 122 ; People v. Kohle, 4 Cal. 198 ; People v. Montgomery, 53 Cal. 576 ; Silcox v. Lang, 78 Cal. 118, 123 [ 20 P. 297 ].) Respondent contends that section 4% of article VI of the Constitution applies and that the error was not prejudicial.

1951(People v. Jenks, 24 Cal. 11, 13 ; People v. Ah You, 47 Cal. 121, 122 ; People v. Kohle, 4 Cal. 198 ; People v. Montgomery, 53 Cal. 576 ; Silcox v. Lang, 78 Cal. 118, 123 [ 20 P. 297 ].) [6] Respondent contends that section 4 1/2 of article VI of the Constitution applies and that the error was not prejudicial.

11951–1951
People v. Ah You neutral
cal · 1873
2 sentences

1951(People v. Jenks, 24 Cal. 11, 13 ; People v. Ah You, 47 Cal. 121, 122 ; People v. Kohle, 4 Cal. 198 ; People v. Montgomery, 53 Cal. 576 ; Silcox v. Lang, 78 Cal. 118, 123 [ 20 P. 297 ].) Respondent contends that section 4% of article VI of the Constitution applies and that the error was not prejudicial.

1951(People v. Jenks, 24 Cal. 11, 13 ; People v. Ah You, 47 Cal. 121, 122 ; People v. Kohle, 4 Cal. 198 ; People v. Montgomery, 53 Cal. 576 ; Silcox v. Lang, 78 Cal. 118, 123 [ 20 P. 297 ].) [6] Respondent contends that section 4 1/2 of article VI of the Constitution applies and that the error was not prejudicial.

11951–1951
People v. Montgomery green
cal · 1879
2 sentences

1951(People v. Jenks, 24 Cal. 11, 13 ; People v. Ah You, 47 Cal. 121, 122 ; People v. Kohle, 4 Cal. 198 ; People v. Montgomery, 53 Cal. 576 ; Silcox v. Lang, 78 Cal. 118, 123 [ 20 P. 297 ].) Respondent contends that section 4% of article VI of the Constitution applies and that the error was not prejudicial.

1951(People v. Jenks, 24 Cal. 11, 13 ; People v. Ah You, 47 Cal. 121, 122 ; People v. Kohle, 4 Cal. 198 ; People v. Montgomery, 53 Cal. 576 ; Silcox v. Lang, 78 Cal. 118, 123 [ 20 P. 297 ].) [6] Respondent contends that section 4 1/2 of article VI of the Constitution applies and that the error was not prejudicial.

11951–1951
Colfax National Bank v. Davis neutral
wash · 1908
1 sentence

1930Bank v. Davis, 50 Wash. 92 [16 Ann.

11930–1930

Statutes the citing opinions construe

CA § Cal. Penal Code § 187 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

IL 22 (1887–2014) AL 19 (1893–2014) FL 14 (1869–2025) NJ 12 (1944–2005) TN 12 (1957–2010) LA 10 (1853–1978) MD 10 (1926–2008) NY 10 (1888–2018) DC 9 (1994–2002) CA 9 (1930–2024) KY 7 (1956–2017) WA 7 (1913–2001) PA 7 (1838–2026) NC 7 (1875–1975) NM 7 (1927–2003) MS 6 (1920–2007) AR 6 (1958–1969) AZ 6 (1949–1987) MI 6 (1915–2004) TX 5 (1902–1987) IN 5 (1909–2002) MA 5 (1936–1990) HI 4 (1910–2012) CT 4 (1859–2017) MN 4 (1878–2008) OR 3 (1948–2024) IA 3 (2013–2016) ME 3 (1888–2008) CO 3 (1897–1985) OH 2 (1940–2018) GA 2 (1877–1938) NE 2 (1958–2000) AK 2 (1983–1994) WI 2 (1985–1997)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check