In any criminal action tried before a jury, either party shall have the right to examine, personally or by his counsel, each juror outside the presence of other prospective jurors as to his qualifications to sit as a juror in the action, or as to his interest, if any, in the subject matter of the action, or as to his relations with the parties thereto. If the judge before whom the examination is held is of the opinion from the examination that any juror would be unable to render a fair and impartial verdict, the juror shall be excused by the judge from any further service upon the panel, or in the action, as the judge determines. The right of such examination shall not be abridged by requiring questions to be put to any juror in writing and submitted in advance of the commencement of said action.
(P.A. 80-313, S. 39.)
Cited. 196 C. 667; 197 C. 314; 200 C. 586; 201 C. 125; 203 C. 506; 204 C. 156; Id., 377; 205 C. 61; 218 C. 309; 222 C. 1; 223 C. 299; 226 C. 237; Id., 618; 230 C. 385, see also 37 CA 801; 233 C. 215; Id., 813; 237 C. 238; Id., 454. Nothing in section requires trial court to permit a party to ascertain prospective jurors' views on specific evidence during voir dire. 269 C. 213. Trial court did not abuse its discretion by precluding defense counsel from asking venirepersons specifically about self-defense. 292 C. 656.
Cited. 10 CA 624; 16 CA 165; Id., 333; 26 CA 165; 30 CA 359; Id., 470; 31 CA 278; judgment reversed, see 230 C. 385, see also 37 CA 801; 38 CA 247; Id., 598; 40 CA 328; 46 CA 600. Purpose of voir dire. 49 CA 41. In a case concerning a male on male, or female on female, sexual assault, relevant questions to venirepersons that delve into prejudices, beliefs and attitudes toward homosexuality should be permitted, but questions relating to the issue of struggling with sexual identity are not permitted as such questions are unrelated to the issues in the case, are not based on undisputed facts and would test the prospective jurors' views of certain facts. 112 CA 694.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
47
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1985–2021 · leading case:
State v. Colon, 864 A.2d 666 (Conn. 2004).
State v. Colon, 864 A.2d 666 (Conn. 2004).
· cites it 7× “I, § 19; General Statutes § 54-82f; 28 Practice *156 Book § [42-12].”
State v. Reynolds, 836 A.2d 224 (Conn. 2003).
· cites it 6× “I, § 19; General Statutes § 54-82f; 111 Practice Book § [42-12].”
State v. Ross, 849 A.2d 648 (Conn. 2004).
· cites it 7× “I, § 19; 18 General Statutes § 54-82f; 19 Practice Book *241 § [42-12].”
State v. Smith, 608 A.2d 63 (Conn. 1992).
· cites it 7× ““The right to a voir dire examination of each prospective juror in a criminal action is provided by § 54-82f of the General Statutes. This right was established as a constitutional one in 1972 by including in article IV of the amendments to the state constitution the provision…”
State v. Hodge, 726 A.2d 531 (Conn. 1999).
· cites it 6× “I, § 19; 13 General Statutes § 54-82f; 14 Practice Book § 848 [now § 42-12].”
State v. Bell, 931 A.2d 198 (Conn. 2007).
· cites it 4× “, General Statutes § 54-82f (“[i]f the judge before whom the [voir dire] examination is held is of the opinion from the examination that any juror would be unable to render a fair and impartial verdict, the juror shall be excused by the judge from any further service upon the…”
State v. Ebron, 975 A.2d 17 (Conn. 2009).
· cites it 4× “2d 451 (2003); see also General Statutes § 54-82f; 12 Practice Book § 42-12.”
Phillips v. Warden, 595 A.2d 1356 (Conn. 1991).
· cites it 4× “” 22 That constitutional right is implemented further in criminal cases by General Statutes § 54-82f, 23 which guarantees *146 “either party .”
State v. Griffin, 741 A.2d 913 (Conn. 1999).
· cites it 6× “I, § 19; General Statutes § 54-82f; Practice Book § [42-12], 16 After the completion of the voir dire of a particular venireperson, a party may challenge the venireperson for cause.”
State v. Holmes, 169 A.3d 264 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017).
· cites it 4× “I, § 19; General Statutes § 54-82f; Prac- tice Book [§ 42-12].”
State v. Dahlgren, 512 A.2d 906 (Conn. 1986).
· cites it 5× “II The defendants’ second claim of error is that the trial court’s ruling that certain questions of law could not be asked of prospective jurors on voir dire violated their statutory; General Statutes § 54-82f; 7 and state andfed *598 eral constitutional rights.”
State v. Thornton, 963 A.2d 1099 (Conn. App. Ct. 2009).
· cites it 7× “See General Statutes §§ 54-82f and 54-84g; see also State v.”
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.