The court shall, on motion of either party in a suit, examine on oath a person who
is called as a juror therein, to know whether he or she is related to either party,
has any interest in the cause, or has expressed or formed an opinion or is sensible
of any bias or prejudice therein; and the party objecting to the juror may introduce
any other competent evidence in support of the objection. The court may permit the
parties or their attorneys to conduct the examination of the person called as a juror.
If it appears to the court that the juror does not stand indifferent in the cause,
another shall be called in his or her stead for the trial of that cause, but at no
time shall counsel for either party be precluded from examining prospective jurors.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases, 1959–2002 · leading case:
State v. Thornton, 800 A.2d 1016 (R.I. 2002).
State v. Thornton, 800 A.2d 1016 (R.I. 2002).
· cites it 4× “Suffice it for us to note that there is nothing in Rule 24 of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure nor in G.L. 1956 § 9-10-14 that specifically permits or provides for an individual voir dire, although in a particular instance in which such a voir dire might avoid the…”
State v. Gomes, 690 A.2d 310 (R.I. 1997).
· cites it 2× “Rule 24(a) which conforms with G.L.1956 § 9-10-14 leaves the decision of who questions potential jurors within the discretion of the trial justice.”
State v. McDowell, 685 A.2d 252 (R.I. 1996).
· cites it 2× “” Accord G.L.1956 § 9-10-14. “[I]t is well-settled in this jurisdiction that the issue of whether a juror is disqualified due to bias, prejudice or interest is left to the discretion of the trial justice.”
State v. Johnson, 383 A.2d 1012 (R.I. 1978).
“1956 (1969 Reenactment) §9-10-14, as amended by P.L. 1970, ch. 235, §1, which stipulates that counsel for either party shall not be precluded from examining prospective jurors.”
State v. Kieon, 152 A.2d 531 (R.I. 1959).
“General laws 1956, §9-10-14, provides as follows: “The court shall, on motion of either party in a suit examine on oath a person who is called as a juror therein, to know whether he is related to either party, or has any interest in the cause, or has expressed or formed an…”
Chase v. DiMeo Constr. Co., 217 A.2d 922 (R.I. 1966).
“1956, §9-10-14, successor to the statutory pro-vision considered in the Hathaway case.”
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.