Printable Format60-247. Jurors. (a) Number of prospective jurors. The court must call enough prospective jurors so that, after challenges for cause and peremptory challenges allowed by law, there will remain 12, or sufficient jurors to be sworn to try the case.
(b) Examining jurors. Prospective jurors must be examined under oath or affirmation regarding their qualifications to sit as jurors. The court must permit the parties or their attorneys to conduct an examination of prospective jurors.
(c) Challenges. (1) Challenges for cause. All challenges for cause, whether to the array or panel or to individual prospective jurors, must be decided by the court.
(2) Peremptory challenges. After the panel has been passed for cause, each party is entitled to three peremptory challenges, except as provided in subsection (h) of K.S.A. 60-248, and amendments thereto, when there are alternate jurors. Multiple plaintiffs or multiple defendants are considered a single party for the purpose of making challenges. However, if the court finds a good faith controversy exists between multiple plaintiffs or multiple defendants, the court may allow any of the parties, single or multiple, additional peremptory challenges and permit them to be exercised separately or jointly. Peremptory challenges must be exercised in a manner that will not communicate to the challenged prospective juror the identity of the challenging party or attorney.
(d) Oath of jurors. The jurors must swear or affirm to try the case conscientiously and return a verdict according to the law and the evidence.
History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-247; L. 1970, ch. 233, § 1; L. 1971, ch. 176, § 15; amended by Supreme Court order dated July 28, 1976; L. 2010, ch. 135, § 117; July 1.
Source or prior law:
(a). G.S. 1868, ch. 80, §§ 270–272; L. 1909, ch. 182, §§ 282, 283; L. 1913, ch. 236, § 1; R.S. 1923, 60-2906, 60-2907.
(b). G.S. 1868, ch. 80, §§ 270–272; L. 1909, ch. 182, §§ 282, 283; L. 1913, ch. 236, § 1; R.S. 1923, 60-2906, 60-2907.
(c). G.S. 1868, ch. 80, § 274; L. 1909, ch. 182, § 284; R.S. 1923, 60-2908.
Cross References to Related Sections:
Right to trial by jury, see Bill of Rights, Kansas Constitution, §§ 5, 10.
Grand juries, see chapter 22, article 30.
Comparable provisions relating to jury trial in criminal cases, see 22-3407 et seq.
Jury service and selection of jurors, see 43-155 et seq.
Jury trial of right, see 60-238.
Trial by jury or by the court, see 60-239.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
Voir dire examination of jurors, T. E. Atkinson, 1 J.B.A.K. 125 (1932).
Survey of civil procedure, Elizabeth R. Herbert, 15 W.L.J. 315, 319 (1976).
"Recent Decisions Affecting the Trial of Cases," Ruth M. Benien, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XVI, No. 3, 18 (1993).
"The Demise of the Peremptory Challenge: Evisceration of an Ancient Privilege," Edward V. Byrne, 42 K.L.R. Crim. Pro. 15, 17 (1994).
"Whatever Happened to the Peremptory Challenge?" Edward V. Byrne, 63 J.K.B.A. No. 7, 18, 20 (1994).
"Attorney Conducted Voir Dire: Safeguard of the Constitutional Right to an Impartial Trial by Jury," William (Trey) A. Alfred III, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XXIII, No. 4, 15 (2000).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
Prior law cases, see G.S. 1949, 60-2906–60-2908 and the 1961 Supp. thereto.
1. Fact of juror being taxpayer in school district party to litigation not such interest as to automatically disqualify. Ridglea, Inc. v. Unified School District, 206 Kan. 111, 113, 476 P.2d 601.
2. Subsection (a) cited; case involving qualifications and selection of jury. State v. Stanphill, 206 Kan. 612, 619, 481 P.2d 998.
3. Statute applied; additional peremptory challenges allowed. Lehar v. Rogers, 208 Kan. 831, 837, 494 P.2d 1124.
4. Subsection (b) cited; challenges for cause determined by trial judge in exercise of sound judicial discretion. Rauscher v. St. Benedict's College, 212 Kan. 20, 25, 509 P.2d 1137.
5. Subsection (c) cited in appeal on question reserved; legal duty of jury discussed in disapproving patterned jury instruction. State v. McClanahan, 212 Kan. 208, 214, 510 P.2d 153.
6. Applied; good faith controversy existed; each appellee properly allowed three peremptory challenges. Massoni v. State Highway Commission, 214 Kan. 844, 852, 854, 522 P.2d 973.
7. Rejection of challenge of prospective juror for cause on voir dire examination did not constitute prejudicial error. In re Estate of Minney, 216 Kan. 178, 183, 531 P.2d 52.
8. No abuse of discretion by trial court in permitting policyholders of litigant to sit on jury. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Hornback, 217 Kan. 17, 19, 20, 21, 535 P.2d 441.
9. Where defendant requests view of jurors while peremptory challenges issued, request should be granted. State v. Brown, 4 Kan. App. 2d 729, 734, 610 P.2d 655.
10. In absence of explicit finding on record, fact that trial court allowed multiple defendants more than three peremptory challenges implies a finding of good faith controversy between defendants. Lemons v. St. John's Hospital of Salina, 5 Kan. App. 2d 161, 163, 613 P.2d 957.
11. Trial court did not err in allowing only three peremptory jury challenges. Schmeck v. City of Shawnee, 232 Kan. 11, 28, 651 P.2d 585 (1982).
12. No error in allowing each defendant three peremptory challenges where each defendant filed cross-claims against the other defendants. Stair v. Gaylord, 232 Kan. 765, 769, 659 P.2d 178 (1983).
13. Failure to use proposed questionnaire during voir dire not abuse of discretion; prospective juror not disqualified per se. Atwell v. Imseis, 37 Kan. App. 2d 435, 437, 438, 154 P.3d 511 (2007).