Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-82g (2026)

(Formerly Sec. 51-242). Peremptory challenges in criminal prosecution

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The accused may challenge peremptorily, in any criminal trial before the Superior Court for any offense punishable by death or life imprisonment without the possibility of release, twenty-five jurors; for any offense punishable by life imprisonment, fifteen jurors; for any offense the punishment for which may be imprisonment for more than one year and for less than life, six jurors; and for any other offense, three jurors. In any criminal trial in which the accused is charged with more than one count on the information or where there is more than one information, the number of challenges is determined by the count carrying the highest maximum punishment. The state, on the trial of any criminal prosecution, may challenge peremptorily the same number of jurors as the accused.

(1949 Rev., S. 8798; 1953, S. 3327d; 1959, P.A. 28, S. 210; February, 1965, P.A. 574, S. 39; P.A. 73-576, S. 1, 4; P.A. 74-183, S. 55, 291; P.A. 76-336, S. 16; P.A. 76-436, S. 105, 681; P.A. 77-452, S. 19, 72; P.A. 80-152; 80-313, S. 40, 62; P.A. 12-5, S. 27.)

History: 1959 act added circuit court; 1965 act deleted obsolete reference to common pleas court, its criminal jurisdiction having been abolished in 1959; P.A. 73-576 replaced “State Prison” with “Connecticut Correctional Institution, Somers” and deleted provisions which pertained to twelve-person juries and allowed for eight challenges in trials where offense is punishable by sentence of less than life and four challenges for other offenses, retaining six challenges and four challenges, respectively, previously applicable to six-person juries and now made generally applicable, effective June 12, 1973, and applicable to all prosecutions claimed for jury trial on and after that date; P.A. 74-183 replaced circuit court with court of common pleas, reflecting reorganization of judicial system, effective December 31, 1974; P.A. 76-336 specified that six challenges are allowed where imprisonment may be for “more than one year” and deleted specific mention of Somers institution as place of imprisonment; P.A. 76-436 reiterated changes of P.A. 76-336 and deleted reference to arraignment before court of common pleas, reflecting transfer of all trial jurisdiction to superior court, effective July 1, 1978; P.A. 77-452 made technical grammatical change; P.A. 80-152 deleted specific reference to superior court arraignments, referring instead to arraignment “in any criminal trial” and added provision re determination of challenges allowed in cases involving more than one court or more than one information; P.A. 80-313 reiterated deletion of reference to arraignment in superior court; Sec. 51-242 transferred to Sec. 54-82g in 1981; P.A. 12-5 added provision re offense punishable by life imprisonment without possibility of release and made a technical change, effective April 25, 2012.

Annotations to former section 51-242:

Peremptory challenge must be made at time of examination, unless new cause arises. 18 C. 177. Juror need not be sworn on voir dire; not a strict right, but may be granted; in any event waived by neglect to request. 47 C. 528. If challenge for favor overruled, no cause of complaint unless peremptory challenges exhausted. Id.; 49 C. 379. When court has discretion to sentence for life, accused may challenge 15 jurors peremptorily. Id., 232. Accused has no absolute right to examine jurors. 69 C. 186; 80 C. 614. Control of judge over examination. 72 C. 722. Where more than one count, number that may be challenged is determined by highest maximum punishment under any count. 80 C. 618. Disqualifications of jurors discussed; distinction between principal challenge and challenge to the favor. 103 C. 542. Challenge to the array, which can lie only for a cause affecting entire panel, discussed. 100 C. 209; 103 C. 471; 109 C. 572. Qualifications of jurors who hold opinions formed through news reports. 147 C. 194.

Annotations to present section:

Cited. 193 C. 646; 195 C. 421; 223 C. 299; 226 C. 618; 233 C. 813; 237 C. 238. Nothing in section requires trial court to permit a party to ascertain prospective jurors' views on specific evidence during voir dire. 269 C. 213. Death penalty unconstitutional under Art. I, Secs. 8 and 9 of Connecticut Constitution. 318 C. 1.

Cited. 7 CA 503; 16 CA 333; 36 CA 631; 38 CA 231.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 15 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1984–2021 · leading case: State v. Ross, 849 A.2d 648 (Conn. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Ross, 849 A.2d 648 (Conn. 2004). · cites it 5× “A Denial of the Defendant’s For Cause Challenges The defendant claims that the trial court improperly denied eight of his for cause challenges, thereby forcing him to use his peremptory challenges to remove the challenged venirepersons in violation of: (1) his statutory and…”

State v. Reid, 480 A.2d 463 (Conn. 1984). · cites it 4× “The defendant also maintains that the number of peremptory challenges he was granted was improper under General Statutes § 54-82g because two indictments (not informations) were lodged against him, entitling him to thirty-six challenges and not eighteen.”

Vazquez v. Comm'r of Corr., 17 A.3d 1089 (Conn. App. Ct. 2011). · cites it 4× “Specifically, General Statutes §§ 54-82g 6 and 54-82h (a) 7 provide that defense counsel may exercise fifteen peremptory challenges for the principal jurors and three additional peremptory challenges if alternate jurors are selected.”

State v. Tucker, 629 A.2d 1067 (Conn. 1993). · cites it 3× “11 See General Statutes §§ 54-82b, 54-82f, 54-82g and 54-82h and Practice Book §§ 843 and 847 through 849.”

State v. Day, 661 A.2d 539 (Conn. 1995). · cites it 2× “See General Statutes §§ 54-82g and 54-82h. A trial court may allow the parties more peremptory challenges than provided by law.”

State v. Esposito, 613 A.2d 242 (Conn. 1992). · cites it 2× “IV of the amendments to the constitution; see also General Statutes §§ 54-82g and 54-82h. We conclude that the trial court’s action abridged this constitutional and statutory right of the defendant.”

State v. Marra, 489 A.2d 350 (Conn. 1985). · cites it 2× “The defendant was accorded his right to exercise eight peremptory challenges, pursuant to General Statutes §§ 54-82g and 54-82h (a).”

State v. Robinson, 676 A.2d 384 (Conn. 1996). · cites it 3× “General Statutes § 54-82g provides: “Peremptory challenges in criminal prosecution.”

State v. Rigual, 771 A.2d 939 (Conn. 2001). · cites it 2× “” General Statutes § 54-82g provides: “The accused may challenge peremptorily, in any criminal trial before the Superior Court for any offense punishable by death, twenty-five jurors; for any offense punishable by imprisonment for life, fifteen jurors; for any offense the…”

State v. Komisarjevsky, 338 Conn. 526 (Conn. 2021). · cites it 2× “IV]; see also General Statutes §§ 54-82g and 54-82h. . .”

State v. Jurado, 952 A.2d 812 (Conn. App. Ct. 2008). · cites it 2× “IV of the amendments to the constitution; see also General Statutes §§ 54-82g and 54-82h.” State v.”

State v. Mozell, 652 A.2d 1038 (Conn. App. Ct. 1995). · cites it 2× “This right is also protected by General Statutes §§ 54-82g and 54-82h. In State v.”

Show all 15 citing cases →

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.