Haw. Rev. Stat. » Haw. Rev. Stat. / Chapter 635

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 635-29

  Challenging peremptorily

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     §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
Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1974–2024 · leading case: Kawamata Farms, Inc. v. United Agri Products
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kawamata Farms, Inc. v. United Agri Products (1997) haw · 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 (1994) hawapp · 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 (1974) haw · 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 (1990) haw · 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 (1997) haw · cites it 2× “HRS § 635-29(1993). 14 . HRS Chapter 804 (1993).”
State v. Timas (1996) hawapp · 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. (2024) hawapp · 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 (1997) haw “HRS § 635-29(1993). 14 . HRS Chapter 804 (1993).”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 635-29(b) — 2 cases
Kawamata Farms, Inc. v. United Agri Products (1997) haw “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. (2024) hawapp “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 (1994) hawapp “Peremptory challenges in Hawai'i are provided for under HRS §§ 635-29, 635-30 and HRPP Rule 24(b).”
State v. Timas (1996) hawapp “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.