(a) If necessary, the court may, without using the jury list, order the sheriff to summon from day to day additional jurors to supplement the original venire. Jurors so summoned shall have the same qualifications and be subject to the same challenges as jurors selected for the regular jury list. If the presiding judge finds that service of summons by the sheriff is not suitable because of his direct or indirect interest in the action to be tried, the judge may appoint some suitable person in place of the sheriff to summon supplemental jurors. The clerk of superior court shall keep a record of the names of those additional jurors who are so summoned and who report for jury service.
(b) The presiding judge may, in his discretion, at any time before or during a session direct that supplemental jurors or a special venire be selected from the jury list in the same manner as is provided for the selection of regular jurors. Jurors summoned under this subsection may be discharged by the court at any time during the session and are subject to the same challenges as regular jurors, and to no other challenges. (1779, c. 156, s. 69, P.R.; 1830, c. 27; R.C., c. 31, s. 29; c. 35, ss. 30, 31; Code, ss. 1733, 1738, 1739, 1740; 1887, c. 53; 1889, c. 441; 1897, c. 364; Rev., ss. 1967, 1968, 1973, 1974, 1975, 3265, 3602; 1911, c. 15; 1913, c. 31, ss. 1, 2; 1915, c. 210; C.S., ss. 2321, 2322, 2338, 2339, 2340, 4635; 1967, c. 218, s. 1; 1969, c. 205, s. 6; 2012-180, s. 11.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
23
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1948–2025 · leading case:
State v. Nolen, 550 S.E.2d 783 (N.C. Ct. App. 2001).
State v. Nolen, 550 S.E.2d 783 (N.C. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 22× “Defendant asserts that the trial court erred by (I) allowing code-fendant David Wilkins’ blanket assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege and denying defendant’s motion for a mistrial; (II) overruling defendant’s objection to juror selection under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 9-11…”
Arnesen v. Rivers Edge Golf Club & Plantation, Inc., 781 S.E.2d 1 (N.C. 2015).
· cites it 2× “Under the control and direction of the Defendant Saunders, the agents and employees of various planned residential subdivisions in Brunswick County, North Carolina, including, but not limited to, Rivers Edge sections 9-11, 13-15, 17-19, promised and promoted seemingly legitimate…”
State v. Geddie, 478 S.E.2d 146 (N.C. 1996).
· cites it 3× “Assuming that the venire was a special venire within the meaning of N.C.G.S. § 9-11 but that the regular form summons was used, there is no authority for the proposition that the commencement of a defendant’s trial relates back to the date a summons for a special venire issues.”
State v. Wiggins, 158 S.E.2d 37 (N.C. 1967).
· cites it 2× “The contention of the defendants that it was error to order such special venire is without merit.”
Loy v. Lorm Corp., 278 S.E.2d 897 (N.C. Ct. App. 1981).
“2d 350, 353 (1951); see also Robinson, North Carolina Corporation Law and Practice, § 9-11 at 196 and 198n.6 (2d ed. 1974). It is also well established in North Carolina, and acknowledged by the three defendants, that once a minority shareholder challenges the fairness of the…”
In Re Fifth Third Bank, Nat. Ass'n, 716 S.E.2d 850 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011).
“For that reason, we begin our analysis of Plaintiff’s challenge to Judge Bell’s order by reviewing the relevant provisions of the FAA.”
State v. Shaw, 200 S.E.2d 585 (N.C. 1973).
“G.S. 9-11 (a), in part, provides: “Supplemental jurors; special venire.”
Carlton v. Melvin, 697 S.E.2d 360 (N.C. Ct. App. 2010).
“Gray Wilson, North Carolina Civil Procedure, § 9-11, at 9-18 (3d Ed. 2007) (“The specific requirement of a complaint forecloses the delayed service of complaint provision of Rule 3.”
Timour v. Pitt Cnty. Mem'l Hosp., Inc., 508 S.E.2d 329 (N.C. Ct. App. 1998).
“Gray Wilson, North Carolina Civil Procedure § 9-11, at 169 (2d ed. 1995) (“The motion would presumably be ex parte, and only the order could direct service on other parties.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 9-11(ii) — 2 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.