(a) The General Assembly hereby declares the public policy of this State to be that jury service is the solemn obligation of all qualified citizens, and that excuses from the discharge of this responsibility should be granted only for reasons of compelling personal hardship or because requiring service would be contrary to the public welfare, health, or safety.
(a1) All applications for excuses from jury duty, including applications based on disqualification under G.S. 9-3, shall be made on a form developed and furnished by the Administrative Office of the Courts. Applications shall allow prospective jurors to specify the reason for excusal based on disqualification, including lack of United States citizenship.
(b) Pursuant to the foregoing policy, each chief district court judge shall promulgate procedures whereby the chief district court judge or any district court judge of the chief district court judge's district court district designated by the chief district court judge, prior to the date that a jury session (or sessions) of superior or district court convenes, shall receive, hear, and pass on applications for excuses from jury duty. The procedures shall provide for the time and place, publicly announced, at which applications for excuses will be heard, and prospective jurors who have been summoned for service shall be so informed. The chief district court judge, after consultation with and with the consent of the clerk of superior court, may delegate the authority to receive, hear, and pass on applications for excuses from jury duty to the clerk of superior court. The chief district judge may also assign the duty of passing on applications for excuses from jury service to judicial support staff, or may, with the clerk's consent, delegate that authority to the clerk of superior court. In all cases concerning excuses, the clerk of superior court or judicial support staff shall notify prospective jurors of the disposition of their excuses.
(b1) A prospective juror who is summoned for jury service in a session of court scheduled during a period of time when the prospective juror is taking classes or exams as a full-time student enrolled at an out-of-state postsecondary public or private educational institution, including any out-of-state trade or professional institution, college, or university, shall be excused from jury service upon request made pursuant to G.S. 9-6.1(a) and supported by documentation showing enrollment at the out-of-state educational institution.
(c) A prospective juror excused by a judge in the exercise of the discretion conferred by subsection (b) of this section or excused pursuant to subsection (b1) of this section may be required by the judge to serve as a juror in a subsequent session of court. If required to serve subsequently, the juror shall be considered on such occasion the same as if he were a member of the panel regularly summoned for jury service at that time.
(d) A judge hearing applications for excuses from jury duty shall excuse any person disqualified under § 9-3.
(e) The judge shall inform the clerk of superior court of persons excused under this section, and the clerk of superior court shall keep a record of excuses separate from the master jury list in accordance with G.S. 9-6.2.
(f) The discretionary authority of a presiding judge to excuse a juror at the beginning of or during a session of court is not affected by this section. (1967, c. 218, s. 1; 1969, c. 205, ss. 4, 5; 1971, c. 377, s. 30; 1979, 2nd Sess., c. 1207, s. 1; 1981, c. 430, s. 2; 1985, c. 609, s. 2; 1987 (Reg. Sess., 1988), c. 1037, s. 47; 2012-180, s. 6; 2015-210, s. 2; 2022-47, s. 10(a); 2023-103, s. 8(a); 2023-140, s. 44(b).)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
17
cases, 1969–2010 · leading case:
State v. McCarver, 462 S.E.2d 25 (N.C. 1995).
State v. McCarver, 462 S.E.2d 25 (N.C. 1995).
· cites it 12× “C.G.S. § 9-6(b) is essentially a pretrial screening process which is delegated to the district court, rather than a part of the capital trial.”
State v. Elliott, 628 S.E.2d 735 (N.C. 2006).
· cites it 9× “N.C.G.S. § 9-6(a) (2001). This language gives trial courts considerable latitude to deal with the particular problems that appear with every trial, and we have recognized that the decision to excuse a prospective juror lies in the trial court’s discretion.”
State v. Rogers, 562 S.E.2d 859 (N.C. 2002).
· cites it 6× “The General Assembly has declare[d] the public policy of this State to be that jury service is the solemn obligation of all qualified citizens, and that excuses from the discharge of this responsibility should be granted only *448 for reasons of compelling personal hardship or…”
State v. Cole, 415 S.E.2d 716 (N.C. 1992).
· cites it 12× “N.C.G.S. § 9-6 mandates a procedure to be promulgated by the chief district court judges to provide for the excusal of prospective jurors.”
State v. Hyde, 530 S.E.2d 281 (N.C. 2000).
· cites it 6× “See N.C.G.S. § 9-6(a) (1999). He claims *51 that he was deprived of the right to reject prospective jurors in violation of his constitutional rights.”
Powell v. City of Newton, 703 S.E.2d 723 (N.C. 2010).
· cites it 4× “, Webster's Real Estate Law in North Carolina § 9-6, at 284 (5th ed.1999) [hereinafter Webster's ].”
State v. Weeks, 367 S.E.2d 895 (N.C. 1988).
· cites it 3× “Furthermore, we find nothing in the trial judge’s statements that would induce any prospective juror to give less than candid responses.”
State v. Nobles, 515 S.E.2d 885 (N.C. 1999).
· cites it 3× “” See N.C.G.S. §§ 9-6(a), 9-6.1 (1986). Therefore, defendant’s absence from the trial court’s communication with Tanner was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Neal, 487 S.E.2d 734 (N.C. 1997).
· cites it 6× “Additionally, N.C.G.S. § 9-6(a) provides that citizens qualified for jury service may be excused for reasons “of compelling personal hardship.”
Burgess v. Busby, 544 S.E.2d 4 (N.C. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “]” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 9-6 (a) (1999). Plaintiffs allege in their complaint that a citizen who *411 undertakes this public duty should be free from a personalized published harassment.”
State v. Geddie, 478 S.E.2d 146 (N.C. 1996).
· cites it 3× “Pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 9-6, prospective jurors from the first two jury selection listings appeared before various district court judges and sought excusáis or deferrals on statutory grounds before the convening of the 12 September Criminal Session.”
State v. Leary, 472 S.E.2d 753 (N.C. 1996).
· cites it 7× “N.C.G.S. § 9-6 (Supp. 1995). After hearing defendant’s motion to dismiss the jury venire, Judge Farmer entered the following findings and conclusions: The chief district court judge excused or deferred some jurors prior to this case being called for trial, but no record exists…”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 9-6(a) — 6 cases
State v. Elliott, 628 S.E.2d 735 (N.C. 2006).
“N.C.G.S. § 9-6(a) (2001). This language gives trial courts considerable latitude to deal with the particular problems that appear with every trial, and we have recognized that the decision to excuse a prospective juror lies in the trial court’s discretion.”
State v. Rogers, 562 S.E.2d 859 (N.C. 2002).
“The General Assembly has declare[d] the public policy of this State to be that jury service is the solemn obligation of all qualified citizens, and that excuses from the discharge of this responsibility should be granted only *448 for reasons of compelling personal hardship or…”
State v. Hyde, 530 S.E.2d 281 (N.C. 2000).
“See N.C.G.S. § 9-6(a) (1999). He claims *51 that he was deprived of the right to reject prospective jurors in violation of his constitutional rights.”
State v. Weeks, 367 S.E.2d 895 (N.C. 1988).
“Furthermore, we find nothing in the trial judge’s statements that would induce any prospective juror to give less than candid responses.”
State v. Nobles, 515 S.E.2d 885 (N.C. 1999).
“” See N.C.G.S. §§ 9-6(a), 9-6.1 (1986). Therefore, defendant’s absence from the trial court’s communication with Tanner was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 9-6(b) — 2 cases
State v. McCarver, 462 S.E.2d 25 (N.C. 1995).
“C.G.S. § 9-6(b) is essentially a pretrial screening process which is delegated to the district court, rather than a part of the capital trial.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 9-6(f) — 1 case
State v. Cole, 415 S.E.2d 716 (N.C. 1992).
“N.C.G.S. § 9-6 mandates a procedure to be promulgated by the chief district court judges to provide for the excusal of prospective 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.