494.480. Peremptory challenges — civil cases, multiple parties, allocation — criminal cases — qualification of juror as basis for new trial — costs for impaneling jury to be paid, when. — 1. In trials of civil causes each party shall be entitled to peremptorily challenge three jurors. When there are multiple plaintiffs or defendants, all plaintiffs and all defendants shall join in their challenges as if there were one plaintiff and one defendant. The court in its discretion may allocate the allowable peremptory challenges among the parties plaintiff or defendant upon good cause shown and as the ends of justice require. In all cases, the plaintiff shall announce its challenges first.
2. In all criminal cases, the state and the defendant shall be entitled to a peremptory challenge of jurors as follows:
(1) If the offense charged is punishable by death, the state shall have the right to challenge nine and the defendant nine;
(2) In all other cases punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary, the state shall have the right to challenge six and the defendant six;
(3) In all cases not punishable by death or imprisonment in the penitentiary, the state and the defendant shall each have the right to challenge two.
3. In all criminal cases where several defendants are tried together, the following provisions shall apply:
(1) Each defendant then on trial shall be allowed separate peremptory challenges as provided in subsection 2 of this section;
(2) The number of peremptory challenges allowed the state by subsection 2 of this section shall be multiplied by the number of defendants then on trial in each case.
4. Within such time as may be ordered by the court, the state shall announce its peremptory challenges first and the defendants thereafter. The qualifications of a juror on the panel from which peremptory challenges by the defense are made shall not constitute a ground for the granting of a motion for new trial or the reversal of a conviction or sentence unless such juror served upon the jury at the defendant's trial and participated in the verdict rendered against the defendant.
5. If the defendant pleads guilty to a lesser or included offense other than the offense charged in the information or indictment in return for a specific lesser sentence than such defendant would likely have received if such defendant were found guilty of the crime charged, or makes any other plea bargaining arrangement, at any time after the jury is impaneled such defendant shall be liable to the county for the costs associated with impaneling the jury.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
32
cases, 1991–2019 · leading case:
State v. Parker, 836 S.W.2d 930 (Mo. 1992).
State v. Parker, 836 S.W.2d 930 (Mo. 1992).
· cites it 12× “, concur in separate opinions filed. PREWITT, Special Judge, dissents.”
State v. Jones, 979 S.W.2d 171 (Mo. 1998).
· cites it 5× “Denial of Challenge For Cause Jones argues that the trial court erred by denying his challenge for cause of venireper-son Merlo because Merlo knew the prosecutor and the prosecutor’s parents.”
Smulls v. State, 71 S.W.3d 138 (Mo. 2002).
· cites it 4× “[6] So, in each case there is a panel of citizens who have indicated that they will be able to impose the death penalty if the facts justify it.”
State v. Wings, 867 S.W.2d 607 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 7× “The State counters that the appellate court need not address defendant’s claim of error, because the language of § 494.480, Vernon’s Missouri Legislative Service Letter, Laws of the 87th General Assembly, 1993 First Regular Session, at 1345 (1993) operates to bar defendant’s…”
Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Pyle, 518 S.W.3d 805 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 8× “4 Point 8 claims the trial court erred in permitting Bank “to challenge a juror after [Homeowners] had announced their challenges” in violation of section 494.480, which directs that a plaintiffs challenges be made first.”
State v. Letica, 356 S.W.3d 157 (Mo. 2011).
“Although great deference is to be given to the circuit court’s factual determinations, here the circuit court misapplied the law when it made its ruling without requiring the State to even offer a showing on the record that racial or gender discrimination was the motivating…”
State v. Novak, 949 S.W.2d 168 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 4× “For present purposes we shall assume without deciding that a defendant may predicate error in overruling a challenge for cause if the challenged juror is seated, even though § 494.480, RSMo 1994 would foreclose a claim of error if the jury had been peremptorily challenged.”
State v. Duncan, 879 S.W.2d 749 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 4× “1993), this court’s Eastern District held that § 494.480 was a procedural statute and did “not offend the prongs of the ex post facto test[J” The court concluded that the statute could be applied retroactively to any cases on appeal where this issue was raised.”
State v. Boyd, 871 S.W.2d 23 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 4× “The State contends Defendant’s point is barred by a recent amendment to § 494.480, effective August 28, 1993. We agree.”
Benedict v. N. Pipeline Constr., 44 S.W.3d 410 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “Appellant initially claims that the trial court violated § 494.480(1) 1 which states “[i]n trials of civil causes each party shall be entitled to peremptorily challenge three jurors.”
State v. Cobb, 820 S.W.2d 704 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 3× “Section 494.480, RSMo Cum.Supp.1989, reads, in pertinent part: "1.”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 494.480(1) — 1 case
Benedict v. N. Pipeline Constr., 44 S.W.3d 410 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).
“Appellant initially claims that the trial court violated § 494.480(1) 1 which states “[i]n trials of civil causes each party shall be entitled to peremptorily challenge three jurors.”
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.