N.C. Gen. Stat. » Chapter 9
NC General Statutes

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 9-15 (2026)

Questioning jurors without challenge; challenges for cause

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NCLEGncleg.gov (official) JustiaChapter 9 CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The court, and any party to an action, or his counsel of record shall be allowed, in selecting the jury, to make direct oral inquiry of any prospective juror as to the fitness and competency of any person to serve as a juror, without having such inquiry treated as a challenge of such person, and it shall not be considered by the court that any person is challenged as a juror until the party shall formally state that such person is so challenged.

(b) It shall not be a valid cause for challenge that any juror, regular or supplemental, is not a freeholder or has not paid the taxes assessed against him.

(c) In civil cases if any juror has a suit pending and at issue in the court in which he is serving, he may be challenged for cause, and he shall be withdrawn from the trial panel, and may be withdrawn from the venire in the discretion of the presiding judge. In criminal cases challenges are governed by Article 72, Selecting and Impaneling the Jury, of Chapter 15A of the General Statutes. (1806, c. 694, P.R.; 1868-9, c. 9, s. 7; Code, s. 1728; Rev., s. 1960; 1913, c. 31, ss. 5, 6, 7; C.S., ss. 2316, 2325, 2326; 1933, c. 130; 1967, c. 218, s. 1; 1973, c. 95; 1977, c. 711, s. 11.)

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases, 1969–2005 · leading case: State v. Chapman, 611 S.E.2d 794 (N.C. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Chapman, 611 S.E.2d 794 (N.C. 2005). · cites it 3× “2d at 646-48 , counsel may seek to identify whether a prospective juror harbors a general preference for a life or death sentence or is resigned to vote automatically for either sentence, N.C.G.S. § 9-15 (2003) (counsel is entitled to “make direct oral inquiry of any prospective…”
State v. Montgomery, 417 S.E.2d 742 (N.C. 1992). · cites it 6× “See N.C.G.S. § 9-15(a) (1986) (prospective jurors may be asked questions to determine their "fitness and competency .”
State v. Dawson, 190 S.E.2d 196 (N.C. 1972). · cites it 15× “9-15 (a) assures a defendant of the right to have due inquiry made as1 to the competency and fitness of any person to serve as a juror, the actual questioning of prospective jurors to elicit the pertinent information may be conducted either by the court or by counsel for the…”
State v. Soyars, 418 S.E.2d 480 (N.C. 1992). · cites it 3× “Defendant argues that the ruling prevented him from obtaining information necessary to exercise his “for cause” and peremptory challenges intelligently and thereby secure an impartial jury. We conclude that there is no merit in this contention.”
State v. Jarrette, 202 S.E.2d 721 (N.C. 1974). · cites it 3× “McWhorter: "Do you have any moral or religious scruples or beliefs against the imposition of the death penalty in certain cases?" No challenge to a prospective juror was sustained upon an affirmative answer to this question alone.”
State v. Young, 214 S.E.2d 763 (N.C. 1975). · cites it 3× “Defendant’s second contention under this assignment is that the court’s ruling on his motion to examine jurors concerning what they had read or heard about the case denied him the opportunity to ascertain whether grounds existed for challenge for cause and the opportunity to…”
State v. Harris, 194 S.E.2d 796 (N.C. 1973). · cites it 3× “G.S. 9-15 (a); State v. Dawson, 281 N.C. 645 , 190 S.”
State v. Smith, 226 S.E.2d 10 (N.C. 1976). “G.S. 9-15 (a) provides in pertinent part that during the selection of the jury “it shall not be considered by the court that any person is challenged as a juror until the party shall formally state that such person is so challenged.”
State v. Thomas, 240 S.E.2d 426 (N.C. 1978). “See also G.S. 9-15(a). However, “. . . the actual conduct of the trial must be left largely to the sound discretion of the trial judge so long as the defendant’s rights are scrupulously afforded him.”
State v. Lee, 234 S.E.2d 574 (N.C. 1977). “In addition to statutory challenges for cause (as provided in G.S. 9-15), the courts have recognized that under certain circumstances there are relationships which impair a juror’s ability to give a defendant an impartial trial.”
State v. Bryant, 191 S.E.2d 745 (N.C. 1972). “The Court, or any party to a civil or criminal action, has the right to inquire into the fitness or competency of a juror to determine whether grounds to challenge for cause exist and to enable counsel to intelligently exercise the peremptory challenges allowed by statute.”
State v. Allred, 169 S.E.2d 833 (N.C. 1969). “G.S. 9-15(a). “The voir dire examination of jurors is a right secured to the defendant by the statutes and has a definite double purpose: First, to ascertain whether there exist grounds for challenge for cause; and, second, *559 to enable counsel to exercise intelligently the…”
Show all 17 citing cases →
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 9-15(a) — 10 cases
State v. Montgomery, 417 S.E.2d 742 (N.C. 1992). “See N.C.G.S. § 9-15(a) (1986) (prospective jurors may be asked questions to determine their "fitness and competency .”
State v. Dawson, 190 S.E.2d 196 (N.C. 1972). “9-15 (a) assures a defendant of the right to have due inquiry made as1 to the competency and fitness of any person to serve as a juror, the actual questioning of prospective jurors to elicit the pertinent information may be conducted either by the court or by counsel for the…”
State v. Soyars, 418 S.E.2d 480 (N.C. 1992). “Defendant argues that the ruling prevented him from obtaining information necessary to exercise his “for cause” and peremptory challenges intelligently and thereby secure an impartial jury. We conclude that there is no merit in this contention.”
State v. Young, 214 S.E.2d 763 (N.C. 1975). “Defendant’s second contention under this assignment is that the court’s ruling on his motion to examine jurors concerning what they had read or heard about the case denied him the opportunity to ascertain whether grounds existed for challenge for cause and the opportunity to…”
State v. Thomas, 240 S.E.2d 426 (N.C. 1978). “See also G.S. 9-15(a). However, “. . . the actual conduct of the trial must be left largely to the sound discretion of the trial judge so long as the defendant’s rights are scrupulously afforded him.”
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.