Arizona

Criminal Procedure

Criminal Procedure

Rule 18.5 – Procedure for Jury Selection

(a)Swearing the Jury Panel. All members of the jury panel must swear or affirm that they will truthfully answer all questions concerning their qualifications.
(b)Calling Jurors for Examination. The court may call to the jury box a number of prospective jurors equal to the number to serve plus the number of alternates plus the number of peremptory challenges that the parties are permitted. Alternatively, and at the court’s discretion, all members of the panel may be examined.
(c)Inquiry by the Court; Brief Opening Statements. Before examining the prospective jurors, the court must identify the parties and their counsel, briefly outline the nature of the case, and explain the purpose of the examination. The court must then ask any necessary questions about the prospective jurors’ qualifications to serve in the case. With the court’s permission and before voir dire examination, the parties may present brief opening statements to the entire jury panel.
(d)Voir Dire Examination. In courts of record, voir dire examination must be conducted on the record. The court must conduct a thorough oral examination of the prospective jurors and control the voir dire examination. Upon request, the court must allow the parties a reasonable time, with other reasonable limitations, to conduct a further oral examination of the prospective jurors. However, the court may limit or terminate the parties’ voir dire on grounds of abuse. Nothing in this rule precludes submitting written questionnaires to the prospective jurors or examining individual prospective jurors outside the presence of other prospective jurors.
(e)Scope of Examination. The court must ensure the reasonable protection of the prospective jurors’ privacy. Questioning must be limited to inquiries designed to elicit information relevant to asserting a possible challenge for cause or enabling a party to intelligently exercise the party’s peremptory challenges.
(f)Challenge for Cause. Challenges for cause must be on the record and made out of the hearing of the prospective jurors. If the court grants a challenge for cause, it must excuse the affected prospective juror. If insufficient prospective jurors remain on the list, the court must add a prospective juror from a new panel. All challenges for cause must be made and decided before the court may call on the parties to exercise their peremptory challenges.
(g)Exercise of Peremptory Challenges. After examining the prospective jurors and completing all challenges for cause, the parties must exercise their peremptory challenges on the list of prospective jurors by alternating strikes, beginning with the State, until the peremptory challenges are exhausted or a party elects not to exercise further challenges. Failure of a party to exercise a challenge in turn operates as a waiver of the party’s remaining challenges, but it does not deprive the other party of that party’s full number of challenges. If the parties fail to exercise the full number of allowed challenges, the court will strike the jurors on the bottom of the list of prospective jurors until only the number to serve, plus alternates, remain.
(h)Selection of Jury; Alternate Jurors.

(1)Trial Jurors. After the completion of the procedures in (g), the prospective jurors remaining in the jury box or on the list of prospective jurors constitute the trial jurors.
(2)Selection of Alternates and Instruction. Just before the jury retires to begin deliberations, the clerk or court official must determine the alternate juror or jurors by lot or stipulation. When the jury retires to deliberate, the alternate or alternates may not participate, but the court must instruct the alternate juror or jurors to continue to observe the admonitions to jurors until the court informs them that a verdict has been returned or the jury has been discharged.
(3)Replacing a Deliberating Juror. If the court excuses a deliberating juror due to the juror’s inability or disqualification to perform the required duties, the court may substitute an alternate juror to join the deliberations, choosing the alternate from among the qualified alternates in the order previously designated. If an alternate joins the deliberations, the court must instruct the jury to begin its deliberations anew.
(i)Deliberations in a Capital Case.

(1)Retaining Alternates. In a capital case, alternate jurors not selected to participate in the guilt phase deliberations must not be excused if the jury returns a guilty verdict of first-degree murder. This rule governs their continued participation in the case.

(A) Aggravation Phase. During the aggravation phase, the alternate jurors must listen to the evidence and argument presented to the jury. When the jury retires to deliberate on aggravation, the alternate or alternates may not participate, but the court must instruct the alternates to continue to observe the admonitions to jurors until the court informs the alternates that they are discharged.
(B) Penalty Phase. If the jury returns a verdict finding one or more aggravating factors, the alternate jurors must listen to the evidence and argument presented at the penalty phase. When the jury retires to deliberate on the penalty, the alternate or alternates may not participate, but the court must instruct the alternates to continue to observe the admonitions to jurors until the court informs the alternates that they are discharged.
(2)Replacing a Deliberating Juror.

(A) Generally. If a deliberating juror is excused during either the aggravation or penalty phases due to the juror’s inability or disqualification to perform required duties, the court may substitute an alternate juror to join the deliberations, choosing from among the qualified alternates in the order previously designated.
(B) Scope of Deliberations. If an alternate or alternates are substituted during the aggravation or penalty deliberations, the jurors must begin their deliberations anew only for the phase that they are currently deliberating. The jurors may not deliberate anew a verdict already reached and entered.

Ariz. R. Crim. P. 18.5

Added August 31, 2017, effective January 1, 2018.

COMMENT

Rule 18.5(b). Before a 1995 amendment, Rule 18.5(b) was interpreted to require trial judges to use the traditional “strike and replace” method of jury selection, where only a portion of the jury panel is examined, the remaining jurors being called upon to participate in jury selection only upon excusing for cause a juror in the initial group. A juror excused for cause leaves the courtroom, after which the excused juror’s position is filled by a panel member who responds to all previous and future questions of the potential jurors.

As currently drafted, the trial judge is allowed to use the “struck” method of selection if the judge chooses. This procedure is thought by some to offer more advantages than the “strike and replace” method. See T. Munsterman, R. Strand and J. Hart, The Best Method of Selecting Jurors, THE JUDGES’ JOURNAL 9 (Summer 1990); A.B.A. Standards Relating to Juror Use and Management, Standard 7, at 68-74 (1983); and “The Jury Project,” Report to the Chief Judge of the State of New York 58-60 (1994).

The “struck” method calls for all of the jury panel members to participate in voir dire examination by the judge and counsel. Following disposition of the for cause challenges, the juror list is given to counsel for the exercise of their peremptory strikes. When all the peremptory strikes have been taken and the court has resolved all related issues under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), the clerk calls the first 8 or 12 names, as the law may require, remaining on the list, plus the number of alternate jurors thought necessary by the judge, who become the trial jury.

Rule 18.5(d). The court should instruct counsel that voir dire is permitted to enable counsel to ask questions seeking relevant information from jurors, but not to ask questions intended to raise arguments to the jurors. The court should be particularly sensitive to the prejudice that can arise from voir dire by an unrepresented defendant.

HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES

Former Rule 18.5, relating to procedure for selecting a jury, was abrogated effective January 1, 2018.