(a) It shall be the duty of the jury commission during every odd-numbered year to prepare a master list of prospective jurors qualified under this Chapter to serve in the biennium beginning on January 1 of the next year. Instead of providing a master list for an entire biennium, the commission may prepare a master list each year if the senior regular resident superior court judge requests in writing that it do so.
(b) In preparing the master list, the jury commission shall use the list of registered voters and persons with drivers license records supplied to the county by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles pursuant to G.S. 20-43.4. The commission may use fewer than all the names from the list if it uses a random method of selection. The commission may use other sources of names deemed by it to be reliable.
(c), (d) Repealed by Session Laws 2003-226, s. 7(d), effective January 1, 2004.
(e) The jury commission shall merge the entire list of names of each source used and randomly select the desired number of names to form the master list.
(f) The master list shall contain not less than one and one-quarter times and not more than three times as many names as were drawn for jury duty in all courts in the county during the previous biennium, or, if an annual list is being prepared as requested under subsection (a) of this section the master list shall contain not less than one and one-quarter times and not more than three times as many names as were drawn for jury duty in all courts in the county during the previous year but in no event shall the list include fewer than 500 names, except that in counties in which a different panel of jurors is selected for each day of the week, there is no limit to the number of names that may be placed on the master list.
(g) Repealed by Session Laws 2003-226, s. 7(d), effective January 1, 2004.
(h) As used in this section "random" or "randomly" refers to a method of selection that results in each name on a list having an equal opportunity to be selected.
(i) To facilitate random selection of jurors, all the names on the master list may be sorted into random order before the first panel is drawn. Thereafter, names may be selected sequentially from the randomized list without further randomization, except as required by G.S. 15A-1214.
(j) The procedure for performing the preparation of the master list shall be in writing, adopted by the jury commission, and kept available for public inspection in the office of the clerk of court. The procedure must effectively preserve the authorized grounds for disqualification, the right of public access to the master list of prospective jurors as provided by G.S. 9-4, and the time sequence for drawing and summoning a jury panel.
(k) In counties utilizing electronic data processing equipment, the functions of preparing and maintaining custody of the master list of prospective jurors, the procedure for drawing and summoning panels of jurors, and the procedure for maintaining records of names of jurors who have served, been excused or disqualified, or whose service has been deferred may be performed by this equipment, except that decisions as to mental or physical competence of prospective jurors shall continue to be made by jury commissioners. (1806, c. 694, P.R.; Code, ss. 1722, 1723; 1889, c. 559; 1897, cc. 117, 539; 1899, c. 729; Rev., s. 1957; C.S., s. 2312; 1947, c. 1007, s. 1; 1967, c. 218, s. 1; 1969, c. 205, s. 1; c. 1190, s. 49½; 1973, c. 83, ss. 1, 2; 1981, c. 430, s. 1; c. 720, s. 1; 1981 (Reg. Sess., 1982), c. 1226, s. 1; 1983, c. 197, s. 2; 2003-226, s. 7(d); 2007-512, s. 1; 2012-180, s. 1.)
§ 9-2.1: Repealed by Session Laws 2012-180, s. 2, effective July 12, 2012.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
28
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1948–2026 · leading case:
State v. Johnson, 346 S.E.2d 596 (N.C. 1986).
State v. Johnson, 346 S.E.2d 596 (N.C. 1986).
· cites it 19× “There was no irregularity and no violation of N.C.G.S. § 9-2 in this procedure. Having discussed the statutory grounds for defendant’s as: signment of error, we now turn to the argument that the procedures used for selection of the jury venire in this case violated defendant’s…”
State v. Massey, 342 S.E.2d 811 (N.C. 1986).
· cites it 12× “§ 9-2 (1981 & Cum. Supp. 1985). Defendant presented no evidence that the new jury selection process in Union County was discriminatory, or that the services of a statistician would have resulted in the selection of a more favorable jury.”
State v. Blakeney, 531 S.E.2d 799 (N.C. 2000).
· cites it 6× “We note that N.C.G.S. § 9-2, which governs the selection of the jury pool, “has been expressly recognized as providing ‘a system for objective selection of veniremen.”
State v. Avery, 261 S.E.2d 803 (N.C. 1980).
· cites it 6× “As prescribed by G.S. 9-2 the jury commissioners of Mecklenburg County used the tax list and voter registration list in compiling a master jury list.”
State v. Avery, 337 S.E.2d 786 (N.C. 1985).
· cites it 4× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 9-2 (c) (1981). 2 . Effective 1 July 1983, the list of licensed drivers residing in the county is a required source of names for use by the commission in preparing the jury list.”
State v. King, 264 S.E.2d 40 (N.C. 1980).
· cites it 4× “Defendant’s argument is that the names for the jury list were not chosen systematically as required by G.S. 9-2 since every fourth name from the tax list was taken only from the letters A, B, C, D and M rather than from the entire alphabet.”
State v. McNeill, 392 S.E.2d 78 (N.C. 1990).
· cites it 6× “In North Carolina, N.C.G.S. § 9-2 controls the selection process of the jury pool.”
State v. Taylor, 283 S.E.2d 761 (N.C. 1981).
· cites it 2× “Furthermore, the testimony of Chairman Farrell clearly shows that the jury pool was compiled as required by G.S. 9-2. As a result, we cannot say that the possible underrepresentation which defendant has shown is the product of systematic discrimination.”
Sweatt v. She Ling Wong, 549 S.E.2d 222 (N.C. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 4× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 9-2 (b) and (c) (1999).”
State v. Harbison, 238 S.E.2d 449 (N.C. 1977).
· cites it 2× “Persons who wish to be excused from jury duty must apply to the chief district judge, or another district judge designated by him, at a publicly announced time and place.”
State v. Hough, 262 S.E.2d 268 (N.C. 1980).
· cites it 2× “The selection procedure for Union County for the past two bienniums was conducted in compliance with the objective, systematic procedure set forth in G.S. 9-2 et seq. which was held to be constitutional in State v.”
State v. Yoes, 157 S.E.2d 386 (N.C. 1967).
· cites it 2× “G.S. 9-2. “Names on list put in box. — The commissioners * * * shall cause the names on their jury list to be copied on small scrolls of paper of equal size and put into a box procured for that purpose, which must have two divisions marked No.”
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 9-2(a): 1 case
State v. Johnson, 346 S.E.2d 596 (N.C. 1986).
“There was no irregularity and no violation of N.C.G.S. § 9-2 in this procedure. Having discussed the statutory grounds for defendant’s as: signment of error, we now turn to the argument that the procedures used for selection of the jury venire in this case violated defendant’s…”
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 9-2(c): 1 case
State v. Johnson, 346 S.E.2d 596 (N.C. 1986).
“There was no irregularity and no violation of N.C.G.S. § 9-2 in this procedure. Having discussed the statutory grounds for defendant’s as: signment of error, we now turn to the argument that the procedures used for selection of the jury venire in this case violated defendant’s…”
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 9-2(d): 1 case
State v. Massey, 342 S.E.2d 811 (N.C. 1986).
“§ 9-2 (1981 & Cum. Supp. 1985). Defendant presented no evidence that the new jury selection process in Union County was discriminatory, or that the services of a statistician would have resulted in the selection of a more favorable jury.”
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 9-2(h): 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.