§612-23 Challenging compliance with selection procedures. (a) Promptly after the moving party discovered or by the exercise of diligence could have discovered the grounds therefor, and in any event before the trial jury is sworn to try the case, a party may move to stay the proceedings, and in a criminal case to quash the indictment, or for other appropriate relief, on the ground of substantial failure to comply with this chapter in selecting the grand or trial jury.
(b) Upon motion filed under subsection (a) containing a sworn statement of facts which, if true, would constitute a substantial failure to comply with this chapter, the moving party is entitled to present in support of the motion the testimony of the clerk, any relevant records and papers not public or otherwise available used by the clerk, and any other relevant evidence. If the court determines that in selecting either a grand jury or a trial jury there has been a substantial failure to comply with this chapter and that the moving party has been prejudiced thereby, the court shall stay the proceedings pending the selection of the jury in conformity with this chapter, quash an indictment, or grant other appropriate relief.
(c) 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 chapter.
(d) The contents of any records or papers used by the clerk in connection with the selection process shall not be disclosed, except as provided by other provisions of this chapter, in connection with the preparation or presentation of a motion under subsection (a), or upon order of the court. The parties in a case may inspect, reproduce, and copy the records or papers at all reasonable times during the preparation and pendency of a motion under subsection (a). [L 1973, c 191, pt of §1; am L 1987, c 366, §14]
Case Notes
Several defendants, counsel must state for which defendant peremptory challenge is made. 3 H. 90 (1869).
Where prosecuting witness after trial paid for dinner of some of the jurors at their request, held misconduct not of sufficient gravity to set aside verdict. 5 H. 64 (1884).
Where juror was incompetent but was passed by court and defendant was obliged to challenge juror peremptorily, defendant has no cause of complaint if defendant's challenges were not exhausted at the conclusion of examination. 8 H. 339 (1892); 11 H. 293 (1898).
Objection to method of selecting jury should be made before they are accepted. 10 H. 166 (1895).
Where after a juror is accepted, there occur to counsel reasons for objecting to juror not known to be existing when juror was accepted, a peremptory challenge may be allowed. 11 H. 293 (1898), questioned on other grounds. 46 H. 197, 210, 377 P.2d 609 (1962).
While disallowance of a proper cause of challenge will work a reversal of judgment, an improper allowance will not necessarily have this effect. 11 H. 293 (1898).
Motion to quash on irregularities drawing grand jury too late after indictment returned. 15 H. 139 (1903); 22 H. 618 (1915).
Overruling of a challenge to array of jurors and motion to quash venire, etc. 15 H. 602, 604 (1904).
Advantage cannot be taken of an irregularity in the drawing of trial jurors unless party objecting was injured. 16 H. 743 (1905); 19 H. 496 (1909); 21 H. 66 (1912); 22 H. 618 (1915).
Challenging. 22 H. 116 (1914).
Challenges to panel or grand jurors only by prosecuting officer or person held to answer criminal charge before grand jury is sworn. 22 H. 618 (1915).
Refusal to sustain challenges for proper cause, error. 23 H. 792 (1917).
Refusal to sustain challenges for proper cause necessitating peremptory challenges on part of the accused will be considered as prejudicial where accused compelled to exhaust all peremptory challenges before final selecting of jury. 23 H. 792 (1917).
Challenge to array of jurors drawn by commissioners of same political party, if true, invalidate jury. 24 H. 608 (1919).
Court may try facts alleged for challenge and if no legal grounds for objection may be summarily overruled. 24 H. 608 (1919).
Erroneous overruling objection to juror avails nothing to defendant if defendant does not finally exhaust peremptory challenges. 30 H. 685 (1928).
Challenge of jurors on examination on voir dire, is right to reject not to select. 30 H. 697 (1929).
In absence of improper motive or prejudice no advantage can be taken of the irregularity of the fixing of a ratio between men and women on the jury list. 45 H. 247, 365 P.2d 460 (1961).
Challenge to grand jury, timeliness. 46 H. 103, 375 P.2d 1 (1962).
Timeliness of challenge. 46 H. 103, 375 P.2d 1 (1962).
Foundation requirement is satisfied by substantial compliance. 57 H. 26, 548 P.2d 1402 (1976).
Trial court's reassigning from the jury venire to other trials occurring that day potential jurors who admitted having knowledge about the case did not result in a "substantial failure to comply" with the provisions of this chapter and did not prejudice defendant. 98 H. 1, 41 P.3d 157 (2002).