THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Act 175 of 1927
768.10 Challenge to juror for cause; effect of opinion or impression not positive in character; declaration by juror.
Sec. 10.
The previous formation or expression of opinion or impression, not positive in its character, in reference to the circumstances upon which any criminal prosecution is based, or in reference to the guilt or innocence of the prisoner, or a present opinion or impression in reference thereto, such opinion or impression not being positive in its character, or not being based on personal knowledge of the facts in the case, shall not be a sufficient ground of challenge for principal cause, to any person who is otherwise legally qualified to serve as a juror upon the trial of such action: Provided, That the person proposed as a juror, who may have formed or expressed, or has such opinion or impression as aforesaid, shall declare on oath, that he verily believes that he can render an impartial verdict according to the evidence submitted to the jury on such trial: Provided further, That the court shall be satisfied that the person so proposed as a juror does not entertain such a present opinion as would influence his verdict as a juror.
History: 1927, Act 175, Eff. Sept. 5, 1927 ;-- CL 1929, 17303 ;-- CL 1948, 768.10
FormerLaw Notes:
See Act 117 of 1893, being How., § 9564; CL 1897, § 11947; and CL 1915, § 15820.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
27
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1968–2023 · leading case:
People v. Gerald Hughes, 270 N.W.2d 692 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978).
People v. Gerald Hughes, 270 N.W.2d 692 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 4× “Finally, the defendant claims that the court abused its discretion in denying defense counsel's challenge for cause of two prospective jurors, since defendant was thereby required to utilize peremptory challenges to remove these jurors from the *17 panel.”
People v. Jendrzejewski, 566 N.W.2d 530 (Mich. 1997).
· cites it 2× “§ 768.10; M.S.A. § 28.1033 provides: The previous formation or expression of opinion or impression, not positive in its character, in reference to the circumstances upon which any criminal prosecution is based, or in reference to the guilt or innocence of the prisoner, or a…”
People v. Dixon, 270 N.W.2d 488 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 2× “Each juror who had formed an opinion about the case and who did not think that he could set that opinion aside and render a verdict solely on the evidence introduced at trial was excused, MCL 768.10; MSA 28.1033. Each prospective juror who had any knowledge of the hijacking…”
People v. Anderson, 421 N.W.2d 200 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988).
“People v Jancar, 140 Mich App 222, 231 ; 363 NW2d 455 (1985); People v Dixon, 84 Mich App 675, 680 ; 270 NW2d 488 (1978), lv den 405 Mich 837 (1979); MCL 768.10; MSA 28.1033. Upon being questioned by the trial judge, the jurors in the instant case indicated that nothing they had…”
People v. Roupe, 389 N.W.2d 449 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986).
“People v Jenkins, 10 Mich App 257, 261 ; 159 NW2d 225 (1968), lv den 381 Mich 757 (1968), MCL 768.10; MSA 28.1033. The challenging party bears the burden of showing bias or prejudice.”
People v. Harvey, 423 N.W.2d 335 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988).
“Defendant used all of his peremptory challenges in excusing the two jurors since the court refused to excuse them for cause.”
People v. Jancar, 363 N.W.2d 455 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985).
“People v Dixon, 84 Mich App 675, 680 ; 270 NW2d 488 (1978) lv den 405 Mich 837 (1979); MCL 768.10; MSA 28.1033. Because Dingman stated that she was able to keep an open mind, we find no abuse of discretion in refusing to dismiss her for cause.”
People v. Asher, 189 N.W.2d 148 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971).
· cites it 2× “6 Further, a Michigan statute, MCLA § 768.10 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 28.1033), provides as follows: “The previous formation or expression of opinion or impression, not positive in its character, in reference to the circumstances upon which any criminal prosecution is based, or in…”
People v. Davis, 333 N.W.2d 99 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983).
“MCL 768.10; MSA 28.1033; People v Dixon, 84 Mich App 675 ; 270 NW2d 488 (1978).”
People v. Marsh, 311 N.W.2d 130 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981).
“On the authority of MCL 768.10; MSA 28.1033, a trial judge may excuse for cause jurors who have formed an opinion with respect to the circum *668 stances of a criminal prosecution or the guilt or innocence of the accused.”
People v. Pearson, 164 N.W.2d 568 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968).
· cites it 2× “CL 1948, § 768.10 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.1033). However, decisions defining due process of law, as provided by the 14th Amendment, regarding a fair trial, arrive at the conclusion that due process had been denied when a court can conclude on an objective basis that an impartial…”
People v. Moore, 214 N.W.2d 548 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974).
“MCLA 768.10; MSA 28.1033. A showing that some jurors may have read or heard of the case through news media is not sufficient.”
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.