60-247.
Jurors.
(a)
Number of prospective jurors.
The court must call enough prospective jurors so that, after challenges for cause and peremptory challenges allowed by law, there will remain 12, or sufficient jurors to be sworn to try the case.
(b)
Examining jurors.
Prospective jurors must be examined under oath or affirmation regarding their qualifications to sit as jurors. The court must permit the parties or their attorneys to conduct an examination of prospective jurors.
(c)
Challenges.
(1)
Challenges for cause.
All challenges for cause, whether to the array or panel or to individual prospective jurors, must be decided by the court.
(2)
Peremptory challenges.
After the panel has been passed for cause, each party is entitled to three peremptory challenges, except as provided in subsection (h) of K.S.A. 60-248, and amendments thereto, when there are alternate jurors. Multiple plaintiffs or multiple defendants are considered a single party for the purpose of making challenges. However, if the court finds a good faith controversy exists between multiple plaintiffs or multiple defendants, the court may allow any of the parties, single or multiple, additional peremptory challenges and permit them to be exercised separately or jointly. Peremptory challenges must be exercised in a manner that will not communicate to the challenged prospective juror the identity of the challenging party or attorney.
(d)
Oath of jurors.
The jurors must swear or affirm to try the case conscientiously and return a verdict according to the law and the evidence.
History:
L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-247; L. 1970, ch. 233, § 1; L. 1971, ch. 176, § 15; amended by Supreme Court order dated July 28, 1976; L. 2010, ch. 135, § 117; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Schmeck v. City of Shawnee, 651 P.2d 585 (Kan. 1982).
· cites it 2× “K.S.A. 60-247( c ) states: "In civil cases, each party shall be entitled to three (3) peremptory challenges, except as provided in subsection ( h ) of section 60-248, as amended, pertaining to alternate jurors.”
State v. Boothby, 448 P.3d 416 (Kan. 2019).
“See K.S.A 2018 Supp. 60-247(d) (requiring jurors to "swear or affirm to .”
State v. Lopez, 22 P.3d 1040 (Kan. 2001).
“The first incident of defendant’s absence occurred when the court and counsel discussed some prospective jurors’ answers to a questionnaire requested by defendant for the purpose of flushing out potential jurors with significant familiarity with pretrial publicity about the case.”
City of Manhattan v. Kent, 618 P.2d 1180 (Kan. 1980).
· cites it 2× “"The lessee will be allowed to ask questions on voir dire if necessary but pursuant to K.S.A. 60-247( c ), in the discretion of the Court, additional peremptory challenges may or may not be allowed.”
State v. Boeschling, 458 P.3d 234 (Kan. 2020).
“" K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 60-247(d). And the significant remaining substance of the judge's response merely repeated the correct statement of the law he had already recited at the opening of the jury instructions, i.”
Stair v. Gaylord, 659 P.2d 178 (Kan. 1983).
“K.S.A. 60-247(c) governs the allowance of peremptory challenges when there are multiple defendants: “In civil cases, each party shall be entitled to three (3) peremptory challenges, exceptas provided in subsection (h) of section 60-248, as amended, pertaining to alternate jurors.”
State v. Williams, 216 P.3d 707 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009).
“See K.S.A. 60-247(d). The court’s first instruction to the jury at the close of the evidence instructed: “It is my duty to instruct you in the law that applies to this case and it is your duty to consider and follow all of these instructions.”
State v. Snodgrass, 979 P.2d 664 (Kan. 1999).
“The defendants question only the selection process in that there was no voir dire examination of the jury. The simple response to the defendants’ complaint is that there is no statutory requirement to conduct a traditional voir dire of the grand jurors.”
Masterson v. Boliden-Allis, Inc., 865 P.2d 1031 (Kan. Ct. App. 1993).
“See K.S.A. 60-247. Defendant’s claim that certain jurors were excused because of their economic status is not supported by the record.”
Lemons v. St. John's Hosp. of Salina, 613 P.2d 957 (Kan. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 3× “K.S.A. 60-247(c) provides in pertinent part: “In civil cases, each party shall be entitled to three (3) peremptory challenges, except as provided in subsection (h) of section 60-248, as amended, pertaining to *163 alternate jurors.”
State v. Brown, 610 P.2d 655 (Kan. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 2× “" We assume that it is this language which causes some district judges to choose to have peremptory challenges exercised in chambers.”
— K.S.A. § 60-247(b) — 2 cases
State v. Lopez, 22 P.3d 1040 (Kan. 2001).
“The first incident of defendant’s absence occurred when the court and counsel discussed some prospective jurors’ answers to a questionnaire requested by defendant for the purpose of flushing out potential jurors with significant familiarity with pretrial publicity about the case.”
— K.S.A. § 60-247(c) — 5 cases
Schmeck v. City of Shawnee, 651 P.2d 585 (Kan. 1982).
“K.S.A. 60-247( c ) states: "In civil cases, each party shall be entitled to three (3) peremptory challenges, except as provided in subsection ( h ) of section 60-248, as amended, pertaining to alternate jurors.”
Stair v. Gaylord, 659 P.2d 178 (Kan. 1983).
“K.S.A. 60-247(c) governs the allowance of peremptory challenges when there are multiple defendants: “In civil cases, each party shall be entitled to three (3) peremptory challenges, exceptas provided in subsection (h) of section 60-248, as amended, pertaining to alternate jurors.”
City of Manhattan v. Kent, 618 P.2d 1180 (Kan. 1980).
“"The lessee will be allowed to ask questions on voir dire if necessary but pursuant to K.S.A. 60-247( c ), in the discretion of the Court, additional peremptory challenges may or may not be allowed.”
Lemons v. St. John's Hosp. of Salina, 613 P.2d 957 (Kan. Ct. App. 1980).
“K.S.A. 60-247(c) provides in pertinent part: “In civil cases, each party shall be entitled to three (3) peremptory challenges, except as provided in subsection (h) of section 60-248, as amended, pertaining to *163 alternate jurors.”
State v. Brown, 610 P.2d 655 (Kan. Ct. App. 1980).
“" We assume that it is this language which causes some district judges to choose to have peremptory challenges exercised in chambers.”
— K.S.A. § 60-247(d) — 3 cases
State v. Boothby, 448 P.3d 416 (Kan. 2019).
“See K.S.A 2018 Supp. 60-247(d) (requiring jurors to "swear or affirm to .”
State v. Boeschling, 458 P.3d 234 (Kan. 2020).
“" K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 60-247(d). And the significant remaining substance of the judge's response merely repeated the correct statement of the law he had already recited at the opening of the jury instructions, i.”
State v. Williams, 216 P.3d 707 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009).
“See K.S.A. 60-247(d). The court’s first instruction to the jury at the close of the evidence instructed: “It is my duty to instruct you in the law that applies to this case and it is your duty to consider and follow all of these instructions.”
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.