Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-240

Current with legislation from the 2024 Regular and Special Sessions.

Section 51-240 - Examination of jurors in civil actions

(a) In any civil action tried before a jury, either party shall have the right to examine, personally or by his counsel, each juror outside the presence of other prospective jurors as to his qualifications to sit as a juror in the action, or as to his interest, if any, in the subject matter of the action, or as to his relations with the parties thereto.

(b) If the judge before whom the examination is held is of the opinion from the examination that any juror would be unable to render a fair and impartial verdict, the juror shall be excused by the judge from any further service upon the panel, or in the action, as the judge determines.

(c) The right of examination shall not be abridged by requiring questions to be put to any juror in writing and submitted in advance of the commencement of the action.

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-240

(1949 Rev., S. 7908; 1967, P.A. 847; P.A. 77-255; P.A. 80-313, S. 55; P.A. 82-248, S. 129.)

Refusal of trial court to permit examination need not be excepted to. 89 C. 47. In a criminal case, such an examination rests in the discretion of the court. 69 C. 186; 80 Conn. 614. Court may exclude trivial questions. 72 C. 722. Impressions derived from newspapers; finality of judge's decision. 71 C. 294; 74 C. 638; 109 Conn. 572. Association of juror with counsel. 72 Conn. 435. Statute as to errors in summoning jury not applicable to overruling of proper challenge. 80 Conn. 614. Interest in insurance company which is real defendant. 82 C. 272. Extent of examination of prospective jurors is within discretion of trial court, reversible only if abused; statute does not authorize inquiry as to effect of an assumed state of facts upon juror's attitude or decision. 126 C. 578. Court has power, after a juror has been accepted, up to the time the juror is sworn, to permit a peremptory challenge where ends of justice so require. 134 C. 530. Asking jurors what they would expect by way of care from a young boy, within discretion of court. 137 C. 51. Trial court has discretion to determine proper bounds of inquiry on voir dire; inquiries concerning assumptions concerning evidence or instructions in charge are discouraged. 141 C. 360. Whether a venireman harbors any prejudice against black people as a race had direct bearing on his qualifications to sit as juror where defendant was black. 143 C. 138. Court may properly exclude question put to veniremen which is vague and ambiguous. 148 C. 266. Cited. Id., 596. Trial court is vested with wide discretion in conducting examination of jurors. 158 C. 389. Trial court has discretion to determine proper bounds of inquiry on voir dire; inquiries concerning assumptions regarding evidence or instructions in charge are discouraged. 160 C. 171. Ruling of trial judge in voir dire examination is reversible error only when judge has clearly abused his discretion or harmful prejudice has resulted. 172 C. 172. Time limitation imposed for voir dire was arbitrary and constituted reversible error. 173 C. 102. Cited. Id., 317; 188 C. 432; 202 C. 158; 203 Conn. 570; 218 C. 386. Cited. 2 CA 58. Court did not improperly compel plaintiff to attend jury selection. 108 CA 156. Cited. 33 CS 599. Defendant in bastardy proceeding has absolute right to voir dire and did not waive it by proceeding to trial after his objection was overruled. 4 Conn. Cir. Ct. 639.

See Sec. 54-82f re voir dire examination.