§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



 



  Challenging.  22 H. 116.  Motion to quash on irregularities
drawing grand jury too late after indictment returned.  15 H. 139; 22 H. 618. 
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.  Refusal to
sustain challenges for proper cause, error.  23 H. 792.  Failure to challenge
for cause cannot be successfully claimed later.  30 H. 468.  Court may try
facts alleged for challenge and if no legal grounds for objection may be
summarily overruled.  24 H. 608.  Challenge to array of jurors drawn by
commissioners of same political party, if true, invalidate jury.  24 H. 608. 
Timeliness of challenge.  46 H. 103, 375 P.2d 1.



  Challenge of jurors on examination on voir dire, is right to
reject not to select.  30 H. 697.  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.  Erroneous overruling
objection to juror avails nothing to defendant if defendant does not finally
exhaust peremptory challenges.  30 H. 687.  Several defendants, counsel must
state for which defendant peremptory challenge is made.  3 H. 90.  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, questioned on other grounds.  46 H. 197, 210, 377 P.2d
609.  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; 11 H. 293.  Overruling of a challenge to array of jurors and motion to
quash venire, etc.  15 H. 602, 604.  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.



  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.



  Objection to method of selecting jury should be made before
they are accepted.  10 H. 166.  Challenge to grand jury, timeliness.  46 H.
103, 375 P.2d 1.



  Advantage cannot be taken of an irregularity in the drawing
of trial jurors unless party objecting was injured.  16 H. 743; 19 H. 496; 21
H. 66; 22 H. 632.



  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.



  Foundation requirement is satisfied by substantial
compliance.  57 H. 26, 548 P.2d 1402.



  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.