THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Act 175 of 1927
768.13 Peremptory challenge; offense punishable by death or life imprisonment; number.
Sec. 13.
(1) A person who is being tried alone for an offense punishable by death or imprisonment for life, shall be allowed to challenge peremptorily 12 of the persons drawn to serve as jurors. In a case punishable by death or imprisonment for life that involves 2 or more defendants, a defendant shall be allowed the following number of peremptory challenges:
(a) Two defendants – 10 each.
(b) Three defendants – 9 each.
(c) Four defendants – 8 each.
(d) Five or more defendants – 7 each.
(2) In a case punishable by death or imprisonment for life, the prosecuting officers on behalf of the people shall be allowed to challenge peremptorily 12 jurors if a defendant is being tried alone or, if defendants are tried jointly, shall be allowed the total number of peremptory challenges to which all the defendants are entitled.
(3) On motion and a showing of good cause, the court may grant 1 or more of the parties an increased number of peremptory challenges. The number of additional peremptory challenges the court grants may cause the various parties to have unequal numbers of peremptory challenges.
History: 1927, Act 175, Eff. Sept. 5, 1927 ;-- CL 1929, 17306 ;-- CL 1948, 768.13 ;-- Am. 2006, Act 655, Imd. Eff. Jan. 9, 2007
FormerLaw Notes:
See section 5 of Ch. 165 of R.S. 1846, being CL 1857, § 6072; CL 1871, § 7951; How., § 9563; CL 1897, § 11946; CL 1915, § 15819; Act 72 of 1861; and Act 139 of 1883.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
20
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1953–2026 · leading case:
People v. Bell, 702 N.W.2d 128 (Mich. 2005).
People v. Bell, 702 N.W.2d 128 (Mich. 2005).
· cites it 2× “§ 768.13, "[a]ny person who is put on trial for an offense punishable by death or imprisonment for life, shall be allowed to challenge peremptorily twenty of the persons drawn to serve as jurors, and no more.”
People v. Oswald, 469 N.W.2d 306 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 2× “According to defendant, because the habitual-offender charge exposed him to a possible life sentence, he was entitled to twenty peremptory challenges pursuant to MCL 768.13; MSA 28.1036 and MCR 6.102(B), now MCR 6.”
People v. Sharbnow, 435 N.W.2d 772 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989).
“Defendant exercised seven peremptory challenges out of the twenty he was entitled to under MCL 768.13; MSA 28.1036. Defense counsel expressed satisfaction with the jury.”
People v. Aldridge, 209 N.W.2d 796 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973).
· cites it 2× “…to Discovery and Procedures Before Trial, Standard 4.6 (Approved Draft, 1970). [13] See MCLA 768.12; MSA 28.1035 and MCLA 768.13; MSA 28.1036.”
People v. Holliday, 376 N.W.2d 154 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985).
“17 Under MCL 768.13; MSA 28.1036, defense counsel had 20 peremptory challenges that she could exercise.”
People v. Williams, 435 N.W.2d 469 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989).
“During voir dire, the government could exercise fifteen peremptory challenges, MCL 768.13; MSA 28.1036, but exercised only four, using two to remove black jurors and two to remove non-black jurors.”
People v. Kregger, 56 N.W.2d 349 (Mich. 1953).
“Under the language of the pertinent statute (CL 1948, § 768.13 [Stat Ann § 28.1036]), the ruling of the trial court was correct.”
People v. Crown, 254 N.W.2d 843 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977).
“5, MCLA 768.13; MSA 28.1036. 5. There is no merit to the contention that the trial court failed to follow the statutory procedure for granting immunity from prosecution to a witness.”
People v. Thomas, 181 N.W.2d 328 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970).
· cites it 2× “2 MCLA § 768.13 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 28.1036).”
People v. Anderson, 532 N.W.2d 918 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995).
“102(D) and MCL 768.13; MSA 28.1036 if his "charged offense” was punishable by life imprisonment.”
People v. Garland, 205 N.W.2d 195 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972).
“In cases involving 2 or more defendants, who are being jointly tried for such an offense, each of said defendants shall be allowed to challenge peremptorily 20 persons returned as jurors, and no more; and the prosecuting officers on behalf of the people shall be allowed to…”
People v. Russell, 451 N.W.2d 625 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 2× “*323 MCL 768.13; MSA 28.1036. [2] Defendant exercised five peremptory challenges the first day, when the use of multiple peremptories was merely requested.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 768.13(1) — 4 cases
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.