Except as otherwise provided in section 29-2004 for peremptory challenges to alternate jurors:
(1) Every person arraigned for any crime punishable with death, or imprisonment for life, shall be admitted on his or her trial to a peremptory challenge of twelve jurors, and no more;
(2) Every person arraigned for any offense that may be punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding eighteen months and less than life, shall be admitted to a peremptory challenge of six jurors;
(3) In all other criminal trials, the defendant shall be allowed a peremptory challenge of three jurors; and
(4) The attorney prosecuting on behalf of the state shall be admitted to a peremptory challenge of twelve jurors in all cases when the offense is punishable with death or imprisonment for life, six jurors when the offense is punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding eighteen months and less than life, and three jurors in all other cases.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
17
cases, 1951–2017 · leading case:
State v. Marshall, 690 N.W.2d 593 (Neb. 2005).
State v. Marshall, 690 N.W.2d 593 (Neb. 2005).
· cites it 4× “with an alternate, the State argues that the first mistrial could not have terminated jeopardy in any event because the jury selection process deprived Marshall of his right under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2005 (Reissue 1995) to exercise 12 peremptory challenges and was, therefore,…”
State v. Nesbitt, 650 N.W.2d 766 (Neb. 2002).
· cites it 3× “” Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2005 (Reissue 1995) provides in pertinent part: Every person arraigned for any crime punishable with death, or imprisonment for life, shall be admitted on his or her trial to a peremptory challenge of twelve jurors, and no more .”
State v. Benzel, 370 N.W.2d 501 (Neb. 1985).
· cites it 2× “See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2005 (Cum. Supp. 1984).”
State v. Williams, 480 N.W.2d 390 (Neb. 1992).
· cites it 2× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2005 (Reissue 1989) grants that number of challenges to a defendant charged with a crime punishable by death or imprisonment for life.”
State v. Walton, 418 N.W.2d 589 (Neb. 1988).
· cites it 2× “Pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2005 (Reissue 1985), the attorney prosecuting on behalf of the State is entitled to a peremptory challenge of six jurors when the offense is punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 18 months and less than life.”
State v. Myers, 209 N.W.2d 345 (Neb. 1973).
· cites it 2× “Article I, section 11, of the Constitution of Nebraska, provides in part: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right to * * * a speedy public trial by an impartial jury * * *." Challenges for cause against prospective jurors are unlimited in number while…”
Callies v. State, 61 N.W.2d 370 (Neb. 1953).
· cites it 2× “Section 29-2005, R. R. S. 1943, makes no such provision.”
State v. Green, 458 N.W.2d 472 (Neb. 1990).
· cites it 2× “§ 29-2004 (Reissue 1989); peremptory challenges and challenges for cause are governed by Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-2005 and 29-2006 (Reissue 1989).”
Sundahl v. State, 48 N.W.2d 689 (Neb. 1951).
· cites it 2× “The record further shows that both the State and defendant waived the fifth challenge and did not exhaust the peremptory challenges authorized by section 29-2005, R. R. S. 1943. Defendant assigns as error the failure to admonish the jury not to read that letter.”
Sherrick v. State, 61 N.W.2d 358 (Neb. 1953).
· cites it 2× “” At the outset, it will be observed that section 29-2005, • R. R. S. 1943, provides in part: “Every person arraigned * * * for- any offence that may be punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding eighteen months and less than life, shall be admitted to a peremptory…”
State v. Marshall, 725 N.W.2d 834 (Neb. 2007).
· cites it 2× “Marshall’s attorney did not object to the number of prospective jurors or attempt to exercise more than 6 peremptory challenges, although Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2005 (Reissue 1995) provides that a person arraigned for a crime punishable by life imprisonment shall have 12…”
Robinson v. Wolff, 349 F. Supp. 514 (D. Neb. 1972).
· cites it 2× “Section 29-2005, R.R.S. Neb. (1964). This is in itself some indication that local conditions did not preclude a fair trial.”
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.