Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 913.08 (2025)
Number of peremptory challenges.
✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
913.08 Number of peremptory challenges.—
(1) The state and the defendant shall each be allowed the following number of peremptory challenges:
(a) Ten, if the offense charged is punishable by death or imprisonment for life;
(b) Six, if the offense charged is punishable by imprisonment for more than 12 months but is not punishable by death or imprisonment for life;
(c) Three, for all other offenses.
(2) If two or more defendants are tried jointly, each defendant shall be allowed the number of peremptory challenges specified in subsection (1), and the state shall be allowed as many challenges as are allowed to all of the defendants.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1954–2026 · leading case: Kenneth R. Jackson v. State of Florida, 213 So. 3d 754 (Fla. 2017).
Kenneth R. Jackson v. State of Florida, 213 So. 3d 754 (Fla. 2017). “ANALYSIS Guilt Phase Peremptory Challenges Jackson alleges that section 913.08, Florida Statutes (2007), which governs peremptory challenges during voir dire, is both facially unconstitutional and unconstitutional as applied to his case.”
Busby v. State, 894 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 2005). “In criminal trials, peremptory challenges are granted equally to the State and to the defendant by section 913.08, Florida Statutes (2003). As a statutory right, peremptory challenges are an important means to help ensure that both sides receive their state constitutional right…”
Victorino v. State, 23 So. 3d 87 (Fla. 2009). “See also § 913.08, Fla. Stat. (2005). Victorino does not argue based on the multiple counts charged against him that "extenuating circumstances" warranted granting him additional challenges pursuant to rule 3.”
State v. Neil, 457 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1984). “1010, § 7 (1877) (capital cases: defendant 20, state 5; other felonies: defendant 5, state 2; misdemeanors: defendant 3, state 2). In § 2855 of the 1892 Revised Statutes the state achieved parity with defendants as to the number of peremptory challenges, which parity…”
Kopsho v. State, 959 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 2007). “See § 913.08(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2000). The fact that Kopsho chose to use one of his ten peremptory challenges for this curative purpose, a purpose for which the statutory right is granted, cannot reasonably be deemed a denial of that statutory right.”
Kibler v. State, 546 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 1989). “§ 913.08, Fla. Stat. (1987). The picking of a jury is an art, not a science.”
LaVALLEY v. State, 30 So. 3d 513 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). “The majority properly resolves this case by applying the plain language of section 913.08, Florida Statutes, and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.”
Johnson v. State, 222 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 1969). “State, supra, which discussed F.S. § 913.08 the court considering consolidated cases held, "* * * the number of challenges * * * would be the same as the total number assured by the statute if separate trials should be conducted.”
Koenig v. State, 497 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). “Our determination that the trial court's discharge of the initial jury was unauthorized is based upon our examination of the relationship between the defendant's peremptory challenge right guaranteed by Section 913.08, Florida Statutes (1983), [4] and Florida Rule of Criminal…”
Matarranz v. State, 133 So. 3d 473 (Fla. 2013). “08(10) points to the fundamental role of the trial court in assessing the credibility of declarations made by prospective jurors in voir dire to determine whether a “juror has a state of mind” “that will prevent the juror from acting with impartiality.”
In Re Amend. to Fla. Rules of Cr. Proc., 606 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 1992). “The suggested rule is a transcription of section 913.08, Florida Statutes, excluding subdivision (5), which is lifted from section 913.”
Cox v. State, 764 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). “34, Florida Statutes. As to the second issue, we affirm the trial court's ruling limiting appellant and the state to six peremptory challenges each.”
— 913.08(1) — 5 cases
Busby v. State, 894 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 2005). “In criminal trials, peremptory challenges are granted equally to the State and to the defendant by section 913.08, Florida Statutes (2003). As a statutory right, peremptory challenges are an important means to help ensure that both sides receive their state constitutional right…”
LaVALLEY v. State, 30 So. 3d 513 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). “The majority properly resolves this case by applying the plain language of section 913.08, Florida Statutes, and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.”
Smellie v. State, 720 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).
Whitaker v. State, 784 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).
Buchanan v. State, 927 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).
— 913.08(1)(a) — 8 cases
Busby v. State, 894 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 2005). “In criminal trials, peremptory challenges are granted equally to the State and to the defendant by section 913.08, Florida Statutes (2003). As a statutory right, peremptory challenges are an important means to help ensure that both sides receive their state constitutional right…”
Kopsho v. State, 959 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 2007). “See § 913.08(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2000). The fact that Kopsho chose to use one of his ten peremptory challenges for this curative purpose, a purpose for which the statutory right is granted, cannot reasonably be deemed a denial of that statutory right.”
Wilson v. State, 304 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 1974).
Cox v. State, 764 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). “34, Florida Statutes. As to the second issue, we affirm the trial court's ruling limiting appellant and the state to six peremptory challenges each.”
Smellie v. State, 720 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).
— 913.08(10) — 1 case
Matarranz v. State, 133 So. 3d 473 (Fla. 2013). “08(10) points to the fundamental role of the trial court in assessing the credibility of declarations made by prospective jurors in voir dire to determine whether a “juror has a state of mind” “that will prevent the juror from acting with impartiality.”
— 913.08(2) — 2 cases
Johnson v. State, 222 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 1969). “State, supra, which discussed F.S. § 913.08 the court considering consolidated cases held, "* * * the number of challenges * * * would be the same as the total number assured by the statute if separate trials should be conducted.”
Costantino v. State, 203 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967).
— 913.08(l)(a) — 1 case
& SC13-1065 Harold Blake v. State of Florida & Harold Blake v. Timothy H. Cannon, etc., 180 So. 3d 89 (Fla. 2014).
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.