Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 635-26 (2026)

  Impaneling

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

IMPANELING, SEGREGATION OF JURY

 

     §635-26  Impaneling.  (a)  At the trial of any cause requiring a jury in any circuit or district court, the clerk of the court shall draw a jury by lot, to the number of twelve, from the box containing the names of persons who have been duly summoned to attend as trial jurors and who are not excused from attendance.  If any of the twelve are challenged and set aside, the clerk shall continue to draw by lot from the box until twelve impartial jurors are obtained, who then shall be sworn as the jurors for the trial of the cause.  If so directed by the court, additional jurors shall be drawn and impaneled to sit as alternate jurors.

     (b)  Upon the stipulation of the parties, the jury may consist of a number less than twelve. [L 1903, c 38, §12; RL 1925, §2415; RL 1935, §3733; RL 1945, §10109; RL 1955, §231-9; HRS §635-26; am L 1972, c 89, §2B(f), (g); am L 1993, c 104, §3]

 

Cross References

 

  Jurors, see chapter 612.

 

Rules of Court

 

  Alternate jurors, see HRCP rule 47(b); HRPP rule 24(c).  Jury of less than twelve when stipulated, see HRCP rule 48; HRPP rule 23(b).

 

Attorney General Opinions

 

  Because proposed amendment to this section conflicted with §13 of article I of state constitution, a constitutional amendment for changing number of jury members in civil cases, where there is no agreement by the parties, was required.  Att. Gen. Op. 97-2.

 

Law Journals and Reviews

 

  The Protection of Individual Rights Under Hawai‘i's Constitution.  14 UH L. Rev. 311 (1992).

 

Case Notes

 

  Oath requiring jury to give a true verdict according to the law and the evidence in the case before the court, is sufficient without adding to truly try the issues.  18 H. 263 (1907).

  Section requires "strike and replace jury" method of impanelment in contrast to "struck jury" method used by trial judge.  73 H. 100, 828 P.2d 276 (1992).

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1986–2002 · leading case: State v. Mara, 41 P.3d 157 (Haw. 2002).
State v. Mara, 41 P.3d 157 (Haw. 2002). · cites it 20× “HRS § 635-26, in contrast, required that, as individuals were excused from the jury box, replacements be chosen at random.”
State v. Echineque, 828 P.2d 276 (Haw. 1992). · cites it 9× “HRS § 635-26 provides as follows: Impaneling, (a) At the trial of any cause requiring a jury, in any circuit court, the clerk of the court shall draw by lot such jury, to the number of twelve, .”
State v. Hansford, 580 N.W.2d 171 (Wis. 1998). “23; Haw. Rev. Stat. § 635-26 , 806-60 (1993); 725 Ill.”
State v. Timas, 923 P.2d 916 (Haw. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “Alternate jurors are authorized by HRS § 635-26 (1985) which provides in relevant part as follows: [I]f so directed by the court, additional jurors shall be drawn and impaneled to sit as alternate jurors.”
State v. Shiroma, 855 P.2d 34 (Haw. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “The fact that the jury was not selected as required by HRS § 635-26(a) did not negatively and seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of Shiroma’s jury trial.”
Kaowili v. Raymark Indus., Inc., 727 P.2d 67 (Haw. 1986). · cites it 2× “HRS § 635-26(a) provides: Impaneling, (a) At the trial of any cause requiring a jury, in any circuit court, the clerk of the court shall draw by lot such jury, to the number of twelve, from the box containing the names of such persons as have been duly summoned to attend as…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 635-26(a) — 4 cases
State v. Mara, 41 P.3d 157 (Haw. 2002). “HRS § 635-26, in contrast, required that, as individuals were excused from the jury box, replacements be chosen at random.”
State v. Echineque, 828 P.2d 276 (Haw. 1992). “HRS § 635-26 provides as follows: Impaneling, (a) At the trial of any cause requiring a jury, in any circuit court, the clerk of the court shall draw by lot such jury, to the number of twelve, .”
State v. Shiroma, 855 P.2d 34 (Haw. App. 1993). “The fact that the jury was not selected as required by HRS § 635-26(a) did not negatively and seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of Shiroma’s jury trial.”
Kaowili v. Raymark Indus., Inc., 727 P.2d 67 (Haw. 1986). “HRS § 635-26(a) provides: Impaneling, (a) At the trial of any cause requiring a jury, in any circuit court, the clerk of the court shall draw by lot such jury, to the number of twelve, from the box containing the names of such persons as have been duly summoned to attend as…”
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.