N.D. R. Crim. P. 24
Supreme Court Conference Minutes of April 29, 2021. pages ___; January 17, 1990; September 28, 1987; Joint Procedure Committee Minutes of April 27, 2018, page 6; September 28, 2017, page 19; April 29-30, 2010, page 27; January 28-29, 2010, pages 16-19; January 27-28, 2005, pages 19-20; April 20, 1989, page 4; December 3, 1987, page 15; May 21-22, 1987, pages 16-17; February 19-20, 1987, pages 19-20; October 17-20, 1972, pages 12-18; September 26-27, 1968, pages 11-13; Fed.R.Crim.P. 24.
EXPLANATORY NOTE
Rule 24 was amended, effective 1/1/1988; 3/1/1990; 3/1/2006; 3/1/2011; 3/1/2019; 3/1/2022; 1/25/2023
Rule 24 is an adaptation of Fed.R.Crim.P. 24, and is modified to conform to existing state practice. Rule 24 is intended to insure that a defendant's Sixth Amendment guarantee of an "impartial jury" is protected. To implement this right to an impartial jury, subdivision (a) permits an examination of prospective jurors to determine whether any juror is biased for or against either party, or whether any juror's status or views are such that bias may be inferred. Others may be challenged peremptorily, but the number of those challenges is limited by subdivision (b).
Subdivision (a) was modified to allow the continuance of the present practice permitting the examination of jurors by opposing parties or their attorneys and by the court. This differs from the federal rule, which gives the court discretion in determining whether it alone should examine prospective jurors or also allow the opposing parties to do so.
Subdivision (a) was amended, effective 1/1/1988, to provide for a uniform jury selection process. However, this procedure is discretionary with the court.
Paragraph (a)(1) was amended, effective3/1/2011, to provide a uniform jury selection process for a 12-person jury, unless otherwise stipulated by the parties and approved by the court.
Paragraph (a)(2) was amended, effective 3/1/2022, to require that the court find on the record an overriding interest for courtroom closure before allowing an individual examination of a prospective juror in chambers or a closed courtroom. The court must apply the the four factor pre-closure analysis required by Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 48 (1984) before making such a finding. See State v. Martinez, 2021 ND 42.
Subdivision (b) was amended, effective March 1, 1990. The amendments are technical in nature and no substantive change is intended.
Subdivision (b) was amended, effective 3/1/2011, to interchange paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2). Former paragraph (b)(1) became paragraph (b)(2), and former paragraph (b)(2) became (b)(1).
Paragraph (b)(1), formerly paragraph (b)(2), regarding challenges for cause, is not in the federal rules. This subsection is necessary to preclude any question that challenges for cause are a definite part of the examination of prospective jurors. This rule also obligates the judge to dismiss a prospective juror if grounds for cause exist, thereby avoiding prejudicing other prospective jurors against the attorneys.
Paragraph (b)(1) was amended, effective March 1, 2019, to allow a challenge for cause to be made only prior to a juror being sworn.
Paragraph (b)(2), formerly paragraph (b)(1), follows existing state law and maintains the number of peremptory challenges historically allowed. The provision of subdivision (b) that allows additional peremptory challenges in trials with multiple defendants was an innovation of former practice.
Under paragraph (b)(2), a peremptory challenge is exercised by a party not in the selection but rather in the rejection of prospective jurors. A peremptory challenge is not aimed at disqualification, but is exercised against a qualified trial juror as a matter of grace to the challenger. The right to peremptory challenges is afforded in aid of securing a fair and impartial jury.
Subdivision (c) is taken from the federal rule and replaced superseded statutes.
Paragraph (c)(3) was amended, effective March 1, 2019, to allow retention of alternate jurors after the jury retires to deliberate.
Rule 24 was amended, effective3/1/2006, in response to the12/1/2002, revision of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The language and organization of the rule were changed to make the rule more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules;
Paragraph (b)(1) and Paragraph (c)(3) was amended December 11, 2018, effective 3/1/2019.
Paragraph (b)(2)(c) adopted, effective 1/25/2023.
STATUTES AFFECTED:
SUPERSEDED: N.D.C.C. §§ 29-17-27 to 29-17-29, 29-17-31, 29-17-32, 29-17-39, 29-17-40, 29-17-41, 29-17-42, 29-17-43, 29-17-47, 29-17-48, 29-21-35, 33-12-21.
CONSIDERED: N.D.C.C. §§ 27-09.1-01 to 27-09.1-22, 29-17-01 to 29-17-15, 29-17-30, 29-17-33, 29-17-35, 29-17-36, 29-17-38, 29-17-44 to 29-17-46.
N.D.R.Crim.P. 23 (Trial by Jury or by Court).