THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Act 175 of 1927
768.18 Jury; impaneling; number of members; qualifications; excusing jurors; reducing jury to 12 members.
Sec. 18.
(1) Any judge of a court of record in this state about to try a felony case which is likely to be protracted, may order a jury impaneled of not to exceed 14 members, who shall have the same qualifications and shall be impaneled in the same manner as is, or may be, provided by law for impaneling juries in such courts. All of those jurors shall sit and hear the cause. Should any condition arise during the trial of the cause which in the opinion of the trial court justifies the excusal of any of the jurors so impaneled from further service, he may do so and the trial shall proceed, unless the number of jurors be reduced to less than 12. In the event that more than 12 jurors are left on the jury after the charge of the court, the clerk of the court in the presence of the trial judge shall place the names of all of the jurors on slips, folded so as to conceal the names thereon, in a suitable box provided for that purpose, and shall draw therefrom the names of a sufficient number to reduce the jury to 12 members who shall then proceed to determine the issue presented in the manner provided by law.
History: 1927, Act 175, Eff. Sept. 5, 1927 ;-- CL 1929, 17311 ;-- CL 1948, 768.18 ;-- Am. 1974, Act 63, Eff. May 1, 1974
Compiler's Notes:
This section is a substantial reenactment of Act 56 of 1923.
Section 2 of Act 63 of 1974 provides:
“Effective date.
“Section 2. To give judges, prosecutors, and defense counsel a reasonable opportunity to become aware of and familiar with the time periods and sequence prescribed in this amendatory act and the effects of noncompliance, sections 20 and 21 of chapter 8 of Act No. 175 of the Public Acts of 1927, being sections 768.20 and 768.21 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, as amended by this amendatory act shall take effect May 1, 1974, and apply to cases in which the arraignment on an information occurs on or after that date. The other provisions of this amendatory act shall take effect May 1, 1974 and apply to offenses committed on or after that date.”
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
32
cases (
5 in the last 5 years), 1959–2026 · leading case:
People v. Bell, 253 N.W.2d 726 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977).
People v. Bell, 253 N.W.2d 726 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 2× “Contrary to appellant's claim, juror #13 was not dismissed arbitrarily. The transcript discloses that the juror absented herself and was not present and the sheriff had no knowledge of where the juror was.”
People v. Fountain, 221 N.W.2d 375 (Mich. 1974).
· cites it 4× “1041 which read as follows: "Any judge of a court of record in this state about to try a criminal case which is likely to be protracted, may order a jury empaneled of not to exceed 14 members, who shall have the same qualifications and shall be empaneled in the same manner as…”
State v. Hansford, 580 N.W.2d 171 (Wis. 1998).
“Rule 4-311; Mich. Comp. Laws § 768.18 (1979); Mo. Rev.”
People v. Missouri, 299 N.W.2d 346 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980).
“Is it reversible error to impanel more than 14 persons on a jury? Defendants contend that the trial court’s impaneling of 15 jurors in contravention ' of MCL 768.18(1); MSA 28.1041(1) constituted an abuse of discretion.”
People v. Harvey, 423 N.W.2d 335 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988).
“1041 provides, in relevant part: Any judge of a court of record in this state about to try a felony case which is likely to be protracted, may order a jury impaneled of not to exceed 14 members, who shall have the same qualifications and shall be impaneled in the same manner as…”
People v. Lyles, 385 N.W.2d 676 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986).
“The trial judge excused the juror under the authority of MCL 768.18; MSA 28.1041. Defendant had previously moved for the dismissal of the juror in question, but, on appeal, contends that his absence from the in-chambers questioning denied him his right of trial by jury.”
People v. Van Camp, 97 N.W.2d 726 (Mich. 1959).
“to be protracted, may order a jury empaneled of not to exceed 14 members, who shall have the same qualifications and shall be empaneled in the same manner as is, or may be, provided by law for empaneling juries in such courts.”
People v. Hurd, 301 N.W.2d 881 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980).
“People v Bell, 74 Mich App 270, 274 ; 253 NW2d 726 (1977), MCL 768.18; MSA 28.1041. *429 On direct examination, defendant was asked whether he had ever been arrested and convicted of a felony.”
People v. Williams, 271 N.W.2d 191 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978).
“MCL 768.18; MSA 28.1041, which provides for the impaneling of 14 jurors, states in pertinent part: "Should any condition arise during the trial of the cause which in the opinion of the trial court justifies the excusal of any of the jurors so impaneled from further service, he…”
People v. Weatherspoon, 431 N.W.2d 75 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988).
“Instead, the trial court’s actions are governed by MCL 768.18; MSA 28.1041, which provides: Should any condition arise during the trial of the cause which in the opinion of the trial court justifies the excusal of any of the jurors so impaneled from further service, he may do so…”
People v. Randle, 304 N.W.2d 9 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 2× “People v Van Camp, 356 Mich 593 ; 97 NW2d 726 (1959), MCL 768.18; MSA 28.1041, MRE 615, People v Buero, 59 Mich App 670, 682 ; 229 NW2d 880 (1975), People v Trupiano, 97 Mich App 416 ; 296 NW2d 49 (1980).”
People v. Mason, 292 N.W.2d 480 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980).
“In the instant case a jury of 13 was impaneled pursuant to authority granted under MCL 768.18; MSA 28.1041. The record indicates that on the third day of trial, a juror, Betty Love, entered the courtroom, approached defendant and his grandmother, shook their hands and said,…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 768.18(1) — 5 cases
People v. Missouri, 299 N.W.2d 346 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980).
“Is it reversible error to impanel more than 14 persons on a jury? Defendants contend that the trial court’s impaneling of 15 jurors in contravention ' of MCL 768.18(1); MSA 28.1041(1) constituted an abuse of discretion.”
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.