Haw. Rev. Stat. » Haw. Rev. Stat. / Chapter 612
Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 612-17 (2026)

  Trial jury

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     §612-17  Trial jury.  (a)  This section shall be applicable to the drawing of a trial jury and service thereon.

     (b)  Whenever a judge requires the services of a trial jury for use in proceedings before the judge or any other judge of the circuit, the judge may order the required number of jurors from the clerk.  The clerk shall randomly select the names of prospective jurors from the certified list and shall compile and submit to the judge the selected names in alphabetical sequence, along with such other information as the judge may require.

     (c)  For the impaneling of a trial jury, the persons on the list of randomly selected prospective trial jurors ordered by a judge shall be summoned to attend and serve.  The names of those summoned and present, and not disqualified, excused or exempted, shall be placed in an appropriate container, from which there shall be drawn a sufficient number of names to constitute a trial jury.  The drawing shall be by lot in open court under the supervision of the judge.  If a jury cannot be chosen for the trial of a case from the names placed in the container before the drawing commenced, additional names may be placed in the container.  For this purpose, additional names may be ordered and randomly selected from the certified list of prospective trial jurors, and the additional prospective jurors summoned.  The judge may summon jurors from among bystanders on consent of all parties.  All names initially ordered by the judge need not be exhausted before other names may be used in the drawing, and the names of additional prospective jurors summoned and present may be added to the container during the drawing.

     (d)  Prospective jurors in attendance, but not actually serving in a trial before the judge, shall be subject to such orders relative to further jury service as the judge deems appropriate, including service before other judges in the circuit.

     (e)  Each juror ordered by a judge shall serve for a period of one day, commencing from the first day the juror is required to appear for service; provided that any juror may be required to serve beyond the one-day period for the trial of any case in which the selection of the jury commenced within that period.  Upon completion of service by all jurors ordered by the judge to serve, the jurors shall be returned to the clerk, who shall not transmit the jurors again to any judge until all other jurors have been exhausted and other jurors which served at a more remote time have been first transmitted for service.

     (f)  A judge may, having regard to the equitable distribution of jury service, excuse any juror after actual service in a trial. [L 1973, c 191, pt of §1; am L 1975, c 48, §2; gen ch 1985; am L 1987, c 366, §10; am L 1993, c 159, §§2, 3; am L 2002, c 92, §5; am L 2007, c 122, §12]

 

Case Notes

 

  Not subject of review court discharging jury after seventeen hours of deliberation; when in opinion of court a case previously tried was so nearly parallel to case for trial that jurors who sat upon former case could not be free from bias it was proper to exclude them in a body, without separate examination.  7 H. 352 (1888).

  Excusing of jurors in absence of statutory provision to the contrary lies in discretion of trial judge.  9 H. 288 (1893).

  Temporary attack of sickness is not necessarily a reason for discharging a juror.  12 H. 159 (1899).

  Order excusing juror from further duty within discretion of court.  13 H. 332 (1901).

  Court declaring mistrial not reviewable except on clear showing of abuse of discretion.  24 H. 757 (1919).

  Trial court's redaction of home street addresses and home and work telephone numbers on juror qualification forms did not violate this section and there was no substantial failure to comply with subsection (c).  85 H. 258, 942 P.2d 522 (1997).

  Word "shall" in subsection (c) is "directory" rather than "mandatory".  85 H. 258, 942 P.2d 522 (1997).

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1986–2002 · leading case: State v. Villeza, 942 P.2d 522 (Haw. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Villeza, 942 P.2d 522 (Haw. 1997). · cites it 25× “Villeza contended the redaction *262 violated HRS § 612-17 (1993) and his constitutional rights to due process, equal protection, and effective assistance of counsel.”
State v. Mara, 41 P.3d 157 (Haw. 2002). · cites it 12× “See HRS §§ 612-17 (1993) and 612-18 (1993). [10] It appears from the record that it was at this stage that the court addressed the 164 potential jurors who appeared at the courthouse.”
Kaowili v. Raymark Indus., Inc., 727 P.2d 67 (Haw. 1986). · cites it 2× “With respect to jury trials in the First Circuit, HRS §612-17(d) provides: The whole or any number of the jurors from a panel or panels ordered by a judge may be required to attend and serve.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 612-17(c) — 1 case
State v. Villeza, 942 P.2d 522 (Haw. 1997). “Villeza contended the redaction *262 violated HRS § 612-17 (1993) and his constitutional rights to due process, equal protection, and effective assistance of counsel.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 612-17(d) — 1 case
Kaowili v. Raymark Indus., Inc., 727 P.2d 67 (Haw. 1986). “With respect to jury trials in the First Circuit, HRS §612-17(d) provides: The whole or any number of the jurors from a panel or panels ordered by a judge may be required to attend and serve.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 612-17(e) — 1 case
State v. Villeza, 942 P.2d 522 (Haw. 1997). “Villeza contended the redaction *262 violated HRS § 612-17 (1993) and his constitutional rights to due process, equal protection, and effective assistance of counsel.”
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.