Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 35-37-1-3 (2026)
Peremptory challenges by defendant
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 3. (a) In prosecutions for murder where the death penalty is sought, the defendant may challenge, peremptorily, twenty (20) jurors.
(b) In prosecutions for murder, where the death penalty is not sought, and Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, Level 4, or Level 5 felonies, the defendant may challenge, peremptorily, ten (10) jurors.
(c) In prosecutions for all other crimes, the defendant may challenge, peremptorily, five (5) jurors.
(d) When several defendants are tried together, they must join in their challenges.
As added by Acts 1981, P.L.298, SEC.6. Amended by Acts 1982, P.L.204, SEC.32; P.L.158-2013, SEC.392.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1987–2025 · leading case: Evans v. State, 563 N.E.2d 1251 (Ind. 1990).
Evans v. State, 563 N.E.2d 1251 (Ind. 1990). “Appellant contends that an increase in the number of peremptory challenges would have increased the chances for him receiving a fair trial. Our legislature already has provided that death penalty cases are entitled to extra peremptory challenges by allowing both the prosecution…”
Whiting v. State, 969 N.E.2d 24 (Ind. 2012). “In addition, state law provides defendants with a limited number of peremptory challenges, I.C. § 35-37-1-3; Ind. Jury Rule 18, which they may use to excuse jurors for almost any reason, e.”
Moore v. State, 515 N.E.2d 1099 (Ind. 1987). “As the defendant in a criminal case is allowed ten peremptory challenges, Ind.Code § 35-37-1-3 (Burns 1985 Repl.), we conclude that Moore did exercise all his peremptory challenges and properly preserved the issue.”
Wise v. State, 763 N.E.2d 472 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). “The right of an accused to peremptory challenges is granted by Indiana Code § 35-37-1-3. However, the general rule is that the right to challenge peremptorily is subject to reasonable regulation by the court.”
Theron L. Bailey v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). “Ind. Code § 35-37-1-3 (b) (2006). [21] Here, the transcript of the voir dire proceedings revealed the following regarding Juror 4’s potential bias.”
Freddie Rhodes v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “[18] Waiver notwithstanding, we note that Indiana Code Section 35-37-1-3 provides, in part: (b) In prosecutions for murder, where the death penalty is not sought, and Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, Level 4, or Level 5 felonies, the defendant may challenge, peremptorily, ten (10)…”
Bruce A. White, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). “Ind. Code § 35-37-1-3 (b) (ten peremptory challenges in noncapital murder cases); see P.”
Robert Edgar Leary v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2020). “[9] Here, there is no dispute that Leary received and used his five peremptory strikes. This is exactly what he was entitled to under Indiana law, and the trial court cannot have erred for following the law.”
Chelsea L. Crossland v. State of Indiana, 256 N.E.3d 517 (Ind. 2025). “I.C. § 35-37-1-3; Ind. J. R. 18. A peremptory challenge is a “nearly unqualified right to re- move any prospective juror .”
Mohamed Sesay v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). “Ind. Code §§ 35-37-1-3 (c) & 35- 37-1-4. In general, a peremptory strike may be exercised for no cause whatsoever.”
Ronyai Thompson v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). “Batson Challenges Thompson also contends that the trial court erred when it overruled his objection to the State‟s use of peremptory challenges to strike two African-American jurors from the venire and denied his subsequent motion for a mistrial. The Indiana Code provides that,…”
Antonio Rush v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). “Batson Challenges Rush contends that the trial court erred when it overruled his objection to the State‘s use of peremptory challenges to strike two African-American jurors from the venire and denied his subsequent motion for a mistrial. The Indiana Code provides that, in…”
Ind. Code § 35-37-1-3(c): 4 cases
Ronyai Thompson v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). “Batson Challenges Thompson also contends that the trial court erred when it overruled his objection to the State‟s use of peremptory challenges to strike two African-American jurors from the venire and denied his subsequent motion for a mistrial. The Indiana Code provides that,…”
Antonio Rush v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). “Batson Challenges Rush contends that the trial court erred when it overruled his objection to the State‘s use of peremptory challenges to strike two African-American jurors from the venire and denied his subsequent motion for a mistrial. The Indiana Code provides that, in…”
Antwan Rush v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
Troy Marie Cain Cornell v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
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.