§635-29 Challenging peremptorily. (a)
In addition to the challenges of jurors allowed in section 635-28, the State
and defendant in criminal cases shall be allowed peremptory challenges as
provided by section 635-30.
(b) In civil cases each party shall be allowed
to challenge peremptorily three jurors, without assigning any reason therefor.
Where there are two or more plaintiffs or two or more defendants, they may be
considered as a single party for the purposes of making peremptory challenges,
or the court may allow additional peremptory challenges and permit them to be
exercised separately or jointly. If additional peremptory challenges are
allowed to the parties on one side, the opposing party or parties may be allowed
additional peremptory challenges.
(c) If an alternate juror or alternate jurors
are to be impaneled, one or more additional peremptory challenges shall be
allowed as provided by the rules of court. [L 1903, c 38, §20; RL 1925, §2418;
am L 1927, c 39, §1; am L 1932 1st, c 11, §1; RL 1935, §3736; RL 1945, §10112;
RL 1955, §231-12; HRS §635-29; am L 1972, c 89, §2B(j)]
Rules of Court
Peremptory challenges in criminal cases, see HRPP rule 24(b).
Sequence for challenging jurors, see RCC rule 17(f).
Case Notes
Where four joint defendants joined in each of ten challenges,
held that they had exercised their full right of challenge, although each would
have been allowed ten challenges if taken separately. 3 H. 90 (1869).
Erroneous overriding of an objection to a juror by court
avails nothing to the party objecting if party has not exhausted party's
peremptory challenges. 8 H. 339 (1892).
Prejudicial if accused compelled to exhaust peremptory
challenges. 23 H. 792 (1917).
Defendant's right to one peremptory challenge to alternate
jurors under HRPP rule 24(c) is a right pertaining to all the alternate jurors
and therefore defendant shall not be called upon to exercise the challenge
until all potential alternate jurors have been examined and passed on
challenges for cause. 79 H. 165 (App.), 880 P.2d 217 (1994).
Denial of defendant's statutory right to peremptorily
challenge alternate jurors resulted in improper impaneling of alternate juror
and was plain error. 82 H. 499 (App.), 923 P.2d 916 (1996).
Discussed: 86 H. 214, 948 P.2d 1055 (1997).
See 9 H. 522 (1894); 11 H. 293 (1898).
Notes of Decisions
Kawamata Farms, Inc. v. United Agri Prods., 948 P.2d 1055 (Haw. 1997).
· cites it 3× “Under HRS § 635-29(b) (1993), a circuit court is authorized to require eo-parties to share peremptory challenges: § 635-29 Challenging peremptorily.... (b) In civil cases each party shall be allowed to challenge peremptorily three jurors, without assigning any reason therefor.”
State v. Carvalho, 880 P.2d 217 (Haw. App. 1994).
· cites it 4× “Peremptory challenges in Hawai'i are provided for under HRS §§ 635-29, 635-30 and HRPP Rule 24(b).”
State v. Pokini, 526 P.2d 94 (Haw. 1974).
· cites it 4× “, Rule 24(b); HRS § 635-29 (1973 Supp.). It is "one of the most important rights secured to the accused," Pointer v.”
State v. Levinson, 795 P.2d 845 (Haw. 1990).
· cites it 3× “Because there was no constitutional ruling in this state that forbade defendants in criminal cases from exercising their peremptory challenges in a manner which discriminated on the basis of race, creed, color or gender, and because there was no holding that an intentional…”
State v. Villeza, 942 P.2d 522 (Haw. 1997).
· cites it 2× “HRS § 635-29(1993). 14 . HRS Chapter 804 (1993).”
State v. Timas, 923 P.2d 916 (Haw. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “HRS § 635-29(c) (1985) guarantees each party the right to at least one peremptory challenge of the alternate juror(s).”
Petricevic v. Nan, Inc. (Haw. App. 2024).
· cites it 4× “and Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff-Appellee Patrick Shin (Shin) (collectively, Defendants) six peremptory challenges during the jury selection process and only three to Petricevic in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 635-29 (2016); (3) denying Petricevic's request…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 635-29(1993) — 1 case
State v. Villeza, 942 P.2d 522 (Haw. 1997).
“HRS § 635-29(1993). 14 . HRS Chapter 804 (1993).”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 635-29(b) — 2 cases
Kawamata Farms, Inc. v. United Agri Prods., 948 P.2d 1055 (Haw. 1997).
“Under HRS § 635-29(b) (1993), a circuit court is authorized to require eo-parties to share peremptory challenges: § 635-29 Challenging peremptorily.... (b) In civil cases each party shall be allowed to challenge peremptorily three jurors, without assigning any reason therefor.”
Petricevic v. Nan, Inc. (Haw. App. 2024).
“and Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff-Appellee Patrick Shin (Shin) (collectively, Defendants) six peremptory challenges during the jury selection process and only three to Petricevic in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 635-29 (2016); (3) denying Petricevic's request…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 635-29(c) — 2 cases
State v. Carvalho, 880 P.2d 217 (Haw. App. 1994).
“Peremptory challenges in Hawai'i are provided for under HRS §§ 635-29, 635-30 and HRPP Rule 24(b).”
State v. Timas, 923 P.2d 916 (Haw. App. 1996).
“HRS § 635-29(c) (1985) guarantees each party the right to at least one peremptory challenge of the alternate juror(s).”
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.