Del. C. » Title 11 — Criminal Procedure Generally · CHAPTER 33. Trial Jurors · Crimes and Criminal Procedure
Delaware Code

11 Del. C. § 3301 (2026)

Examination upon voir dire in capital cases

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section DE-DELCdelcode.delaware.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

When a juror is called in a capital case, the juror shall be first sworn or affirmed upon the voir dire and then asked, under the direction of the court, if the juror has formed or expressed any opinion in regard to the guilt or innocence of the prisoner at the bar. If the answer is in the negative, the juror shall be sworn as a juror in the case, unless the juror has conscientious scruples against finding a verdict of guilty in a case where the punishment is death, even if the evidence should so warrant, or unless the juror shall be peremptorily challenged, challenged for cause or excused by consent of counsel on both sides. If the juror’s answer to the question be in the affirmative, the juror shall be disqualified to sit in the case, unless the juror shall say, upon oath or affirmation, to the satisfaction of the court, that the juror feels able, notwithstanding such an opinion, to render an impartial verdict upon the law and the evidence, in which event the juror shall be a competent juror, if not otherwise disqualified, challenged or excused.

17 Del. Laws, c. 221;  Code 1915, §  4823;  Code 1935, §  5312;  11 Del. C. 1953, §  3301;  70 Del. Laws, c. 186, §  1; 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1971–2015 · leading case: Parson v. State, 275 A.2d 777 (Del. 1971).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Parson v. State, 275 A.2d 777 (Del. 1971). · cites it 3× “” 11 Del.C. § 3301 provides as follows: “When a juror is called in a capital case, he shall be first sworn or affirmed upon the voir dire and then asked, under the direction of the Court, if he has formed or expressed any opinion in regard to the guilt or innocence of the…”
Steigler v. State, 277 A.2d 662 (Del. 1971). “Their answers apparently convinced appellant’s counsel, as well as the trial Judge, that they were fully capable of deciding the case impartially.”
State v. Cabrera, Jr. (Del. Super. Ct. 2015). “[but] whether the juror’s views render the juror unable to comply with the trial court’s 234 Hobbs v.”
State of Delaware v. Cabrera. (Del. Super. Ct. 2015). “[but] whether the juror’s views render the juror unable to comply with the trial court’s 235 Hobbs 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.