136.230
Peremptory challenges.
(1) If the trial is upon an accusatory instrument in which one or more of the
crimes charged is punishable with imprisonment in a Department of Corrections
institution for life or is a capital offense, both the defendant and the state
are entitled to 12 peremptory challenges, and no more. In any trial before more
than six jurors, both are entitled to six. In any trial before six jurors, both
are entitled to three.
(2) Peremptory
challenges shall be taken in writing by secret ballot as follows:
(a) The defendant
may challenge two jurors and the state may challenge two, and so alternating,
the defendant exercising two challenges and the state two until the peremptory
challenges are exhausted.
(b) After each
challenge the panel shall be filled and the additional juror passed for cause
before another peremptory challenge is exercised. Neither party shall be
required to exercise a peremptory challenge unless the full number of jurors is
in the jury box at the time.
(c) The refusal
to challenge by either party in order of alternation does not prevent the
adverse party from exercising that adverse party’s full number of challenges,
and such refusal on the part of a party to exercise a challenge in proper turn
concludes that party as to the jurors once accepted by that party. If that
party’s right of peremptory challenge is not exhausted, that party’s further
challenges shall be confined, in that party’s proper turn, to such additional
jurors as may be called.
(3)
Notwithstanding subsection (2) of this section, the defendant and the state may
stipulate to taking peremptory challenges orally.
(4) Peremptory
challenges are subject to ORCP 57 D(4). [Amended by 1973 c.836 §233; 1977 c.63 §1;
1987 c.2 §7; 1987 c.320 §26; 1995 c.530 §2; 1997 c.801 §70]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
15
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1977–2023 · leading case:
State v. Guzek, 906 P.2d 272 (Or. 1995).
State v. Guzek, 906 P.2d 272 (Or. 1995).
· cites it 4× “2, § 7 (amending ORS 136.230 to make limits on peremptory challenges apply to "capital offense[s]"); id.”
State v. Barone, 986 P.2d 5 (Or. 1999).
· cites it 4× “Defendant then requested six additional peremptory challenges to allow him to remove the six jurors to whom he objected. The trial court denied the request, again stating that it believed that the six jurors in question were not biased against defendant.”
State v. McDonnell, 837 P.2d 941 (Or. 1992).
· cites it 2× “See ORCP 59 E ("The judge shall not instruct with respect to matters of fact, nor comment thereon"), made applicable to trial of criminal actions by ORS 136.230. Moreover, with the advent of reciprocal discovery, ORS 135.”
State v. Barone, 969 P.2d 1013 (Or. 1998).
“ORS 136.230(1). 4 Douglas explains that position by quoting State v.”
State v. Longo, 148 P.3d 892 (Or. 2006).
“” ORCP 57 D(4), made applicable to criminal proceedings by ORS 136.230(4), prohibits any party from using peremptory challenges to discriminate, and sets out the procedure for such challenges.”
State v. Curry, 447 P.3d 7 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).
“See ORCP 57 D(4) (setting forth a burden-shifting process for peremptory challenges); ORS 136.230 (providing that peremptory challenges in criminal cases are subject to ORCP 57 D(4)).”
State v. Villeda, 526 P.3d 1213 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“Defendant contends that, although juror 155 did not serve on the jury, the trial court’s error nonetheless was prejudicial, because defendant was forced to waste a peremptory challenge to exclude juror 155, which effectively deprived defendant of a peremptory challenge to which…”
Earle v. McCarthy, 560 P.2d 665 (Or. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 2× “” Ordinance Section 136.230, pursuant to ORS 215.213, lists the permissible conditional uses in an EFU zone: "The following non-farm uses may be established, subject to the approval as provided in Chapter 119 of the Uniform Zone Code.”
Wells v. Paulus, 675 P.2d 482 (Or. 1984).
“An amendment to ORS 136.230 would increase the state’s *341 peremptory challenges to the same number as the defendant.”
Craven v. Jackson Cnty., 764 P.2d 931 (Or. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 2× “213(2)(c), and concluded: “Ordinance Section 136.230, pursuant to ORS 215.213, lists the permissible conditional uses in an EFU zone: “ ‘The following non-farm uses may be established, subject to the approval as provided in Chapter 119 of the Uniform Zone Code.”
State v. Scott, 899 P.2d 697 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).
“250(2): “When two or more defendants are tried together, the number of peremptory challenges prescribed in ORS 136.230 shall be doubled, but in no case shall the total number of challenges exceed 12 for the state and 24 for the defense.”
State v. Moore, 775 P.2d 906 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 2× “ORS 136.230(1). 1 We decline to do so. Defendant argues that, although his right to a fair trial by an impartial jury is not violated by either a reduction in the number of peremptory challenges or a less than unanimous jury verdict alone, it is violated by a combination of…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.230(1) — 4 cases
State v. Barone, 986 P.2d 5 (Or. 1999).
“Defendant then requested six additional peremptory challenges to allow him to remove the six jurors to whom he objected. The trial court denied the request, again stating that it believed that the six jurors in question were not biased against defendant.”
State v. Barone, 969 P.2d 1013 (Or. 1998).
“ORS 136.230(1). 4 Douglas explains that position by quoting State v.”
State v. Villeda, 526 P.3d 1213 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“Defendant contends that, although juror 155 did not serve on the jury, the trial court’s error nonetheless was prejudicial, because defendant was forced to waste a peremptory challenge to exclude juror 155, which effectively deprived defendant of a peremptory challenge to which…”
State v. Moore, 775 P.2d 906 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).
“ORS 136.230(1). 1 We decline to do so. Defendant argues that, although his right to a fair trial by an impartial jury is not violated by either a reduction in the number of peremptory challenges or a less than unanimous jury verdict alone, it is violated by a combination of…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.230(4) — 2 cases
State v. Longo, 148 P.3d 892 (Or. 2006).
“” ORCP 57 D(4), made applicable to criminal proceedings by ORS 136.230(4), prohibits any party from using peremptory challenges to discriminate, and sets out the procedure for such challenges.”
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.