Utah Code » Title 78B, Chapter 1 — Juries and Witnesses; part 78B-1-1 — Jury and Witness Act
Utah Code

Utah Code § 78B-1-113 (2026)

Jury not selected in conformity with chapter -- Procedure to challenge -- Relief available -- Exclusive remedy

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section UT-LEGle.utah.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Within seven days after the moving party discovered, or by the exercise of diligence could have discovered the grounds therefore, and in any event before the trial jury is sworn to try the case, a party may move to stay the proceedings or to quash an indictment, or for other appropriate relief, on the ground of substantial failure to comply with this act in selecting a grand or trial jury.
Upon motion filed under this section containing a sworn statement of acts which if true would constitute a substantial failure to comply with this act, the moving party may present testimony of the county clerk, the clerk of the court, any relevant records and papers not public or otherwise available used by the jury commission or the clerk, and any other relevant evidence. If the court determines that in selecting either a grand or a trial jury there has been a substantial failure to comply with this act and it appears that actual and substantial injustice and prejudice has resulted or will result to a party in consequence of the failure, the court shall stay the proceedings pending the selection of the jury in conformity with this act, quash an indictment, or grant other appropriate relief.
The procedures prescribed by this section are the exclusive means by which a person accused of a crime, the state, or a party in a civil case may challenge a jury on the ground that the jury was not selected in conformity with this act.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2011–2025 · leading case: State v. Richins, 2025 UT 10 (Utah 2025).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Richins, 2025 UT 10 (Utah 2025). · cites it 4× “See UTAH CODE § 78B-1-113. That provision sets forth an “exclusive means by which” parties in a criminal case “may challenge a jury on the ground that the jury was not selected in conformity with th[e] [A]ct.”
State v. Tejada, 18 A.3d 865 (Md. 2011). “22, § 634 (Lexis 2011); Utah Code Ann. § 78B-1-113 (1) (2011); Va.”
Utah Code § 78B-1-113(1): 1 case
State v. Richins, 2025 UT 10 (Utah 2025). “See UTAH CODE § 78B-1-113. That provision sets forth an “exclusive means by which” parties in a criminal case “may challenge a jury on the ground that the jury was not selected in conformity with th[e] [A]ct.”
Utah Code § 78B-1-113(2): 1 case
State v. Richins, 2025 UT 10 (Utah 2025). “See UTAH CODE § 78B-1-113. That provision sets forth an “exclusive means by which” parties in a criminal case “may challenge a jury on the ground that the jury was not selected in conformity with th[e] [A]ct.”
Utah Code § 78B-1-113(3): 1 case
State v. Richins, 2025 UT 10 (Utah 2025). “See UTAH CODE § 78B-1-113. That provision sets forth an “exclusive means by which” parties in a criminal case “may challenge a jury on the ground that the jury was not selected in conformity with th[e] [A]ct.”
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.