Utah R. Crim. P. 18

As amended through October 28, 2024

Rule 18 - Selection of the Jury

(a) Method of selection. The judge shall determine the method of selecting the jury and notify the parties at a pretrial conference or otherwise prior to trial. The following procedures for selection are not exclusive.

(a)(1) Strike and replace method. The court shall summon the number of the jurors that are to try the cause plus such an additional number as will allow for any alternates, for all peremptory challenges permitted, and for all challenges for cause granted. At the direction of the judge, the clerk shall call jurors in random order. The judge may hear and determine challenges for cause during the course of questioning or at the end thereof. The judge may and, at the request of any party, shall hear and determine challenges for cause outside the hearing of the jurors. After each challenge for cause sustained, another juror shall be called to fill the vacancy , and any such new juror may be challenged for cause. When the challenges for cause are completed, the clerk shall provide a list of the jurors remaining, and each side, beginning with the prosecution, shall indicate thereon its peremptory challenge to one juror at a time in regular turn, as the court may direct, until all peremptory challenges are exhausted or waived. The clerk shall then call the remaining jurors, or so many of them as shall be necessary to constitute the jury, including any alternate jurors, and the persons whose names are so called shall constitute the jury. If alternate jurors have been selected, the last jurors called shall be the alternates, unless otherwise ordered by the court prior to voir dire.

(a)(2) Struck method. The court shall summon the number of jurors that are to try the cause plus such an additional number as will allow for any alternates, for all peremptory challenges permitted and for all challenges for cause granted. At the direction of the judge, the clerk shall call jurors in random order. The judge may hear and determine challenges for cause during the course of questioning or at the end thereof. The judge may and, at the request of any party, shall hear and determine challenges for cause outside the hearing of the jurors. When the challenges for cause are completed, the clerk shall provide a list of the jurors remaining, and each side, beginning with the prosecution, shall indicate thereon its peremptory challenge to one juror at a time in regular turn until all peremptory challenges are exhausted or waived. The clerk shall then call the remaining jurors, or so many of them as shall be necessary to constitute the jury, including any alternate jurors, and the persons whose names are so called shall constitute the jury. If alternate jurors have been selected, the last jurors called shall be the alternates, unless otherwise ordered by the court prior to voir dire.

(a)(3) In courts using lists of prospective jurors generated in random order by computer, the clerk may call the jurors in that random order.

(b) Examination of prospective jurors. The court may permit counsel or the defendant to conduct the examination of the prospective jurors or may itself conduct the examination. In the latter event, the court may permit counsel or the defendant to supplement the examination by such further inquiry as it deems proper, or may itself submit to the prospective jurors additional questions requested by counsel or the defendant. Prior to examining the jurors, the court may make a preliminary statement of the case. The court may permit the parties or their attorneys to make a preliminary statement of the case, and notify the parties in advance of trial.

(c) Challenges to panel or individuals. A challenge may be made to the panel or to an individual juror.

(c)(1) The panel is a list of jurors called to serve at a particular court or for the trial of a particular action. A challenge to the panel is an objection made to all jurors summoned and may be taken by either party.

(c)(1)(i) A challenge to the panel can be founded only on a material departure from the procedure prescribed with respect to the selection, drawing, summoning and return of the panel.

(c)(1)(ii) The challenge to the panel shall be taken before the jury is sworn and shall be in writing or made upon the record. It shall specifically set forth the facts constituting the grounds of the challenge.

(c)(1)(iii) If a challenge to the panel is opposed by the adverse party, a hearing may be had to try any question of fact upon which the challenge is based. The jurors challenged, and any other persons, may be called as witnesses at the hearing thereon.

(c)(1)(iv) The court shall decide the challenge. If the challenge to the panel is allowed, the court shall discharge the jury so far as the trial in question is concerned. If a challenge is denied, the court shall direct the selection of jurors to proceed.

(c)(2) A challenge to an individual juror may be either peremptory or for cause. A challenge to an individual juror may be made only before the jury is sworn to try the action, except the court may, for good cause, permit it to be made after the juror is sworn but before any of the evidence is presented. In challenges for cause the rules relating to challenges to a panel and hearings thereon shall apply. All challenges for cause shall be taken first by the prosecution and then by the defense alternately. Challenges for cause shall be completed before peremptory challenges are taken.

(d) Peremptory challenges. A peremptory challenge is an objection to a juror for which no reason need be given. In capital cases, each side is entitled to 10 peremptory challenges. In other felony cases each side is entitled to four peremptory challenges. In misdemeanor cases, each side is entitled to three peremptory challenges. If there is more than one defendant the court may allow the defendants additional peremptory challenges and permit them to be exercised separately or jointly.

(e) Challenges for cause. A challenge for cause is an objection to a particular juror and shall be heard and determined by the court. The juror challenged and any other person may be examined as a witness on the hearing of such challenge. A challenge for cause may be taken on one or more of the following grounds. On its own motion the court may remove a juror upon the same grounds.

(e)(1) Want of any of the qualifications prescribed by law.

(e)(2) Any mental or physical infirmity which renders one incapable of performing the duties of a juror.

(e)(3) Consanguinity or affinity within the fourth degree to the person alleged to be injured by the offense charged, or on whose complaint the prosecution was instituted.

(e)(4) The existence of any social, legal, business, fiduciary or other relationship between the prospective juror and any party, witness or person alleged to have been victimized or injured by the defendant, which relationship when viewed objectively, would suggest to reasonable minds that the prospective juror would be unable or unwilling to return a verdict which would be free of favoritism. A prospective juror shall not be disqualified solely because the juror is indebted to or employed by the state or a political subdivision thereof.

(e)(5) Having been or being the party adverse to the defendant in a civil action, or having complained against or having been accused by the defendant in a criminal prosecution.

(e)(6) Having served on the grand jury which found the indictment.

(e)(7) Having served on a trial jury which has tried another person for the particular offense charged.

(e)(8) Having been one of a jury formally sworn to try the same charge, and whose verdict was set aside, or which was discharged without a verdict after the case was submitted to it.

(e)(9) Having served as a juror in a civil action brought against the defendant for the act charged as an offense.

(e)(10) If the offense charged is punishable with death, the juror's views on capital punishment would prevent or substantially impair the performance of the juror's duties as a juror in accordance with the instructions of the court and the juror's oath in subsection (h).

(e)(11) Because the juror is or, within one year preceding, has been engaged or interested in carrying on any business, calling or employment, the carrying on of which is a violation of law, where defendant is charged with a like offense.

(e)(12) Because the juror has been a witness, either for or against the defendant on the preliminary examination or before the grand jury.

(e)(13) Having formed or expressed an unqualified opinion or belief as to whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of the offense charged.

(e)(14) Conduct, responses, state of mind or other circumstances that reasonably lead the court to conclude the juror is not likely to act impartially. No person may serve as a juror, if challenged, unless the judge is convinced the juror can and will act impartially and fairly.

(f) Alternate jurors. The court may impanel alternate jurors to replace any jurors who are unable to perform or who are disqualified from performing their duties. Alternate jurors must have the same qualifications and be selected and sworn in the same manner as any other juror. If one or two alternate jurors are called, the prosecution and defense shall each have one additional peremptory challenge. If three or four alternate jurors are called, each side shall have two additional peremptory challenges. Alternate jurors replace jurors in the same sequence in which the alternates were selected. An alternate juror who replaces a juror has the same authority as the other jurors. The court may retain alternate jurors after the jury retires to deliberate. The court 146 must ensure that a retained alternate does not discuss the case with anyone until that alternate replaces a juror or is discharged. If an alternate replaces a juror after deliberations have begun, the court must instruct the jury to begin its deliberations anew.

(g) Juror oath. When the jury is selected an oath shall be administered to the jurors, in substance, that they and each of them will well and truly try the matter in issue between the parties, and render a true verdict according to the evidence and the instructions of the court.

Utah. R. Crim. P. 18

Amended by Order dated November 23, 2016, effective 5/1/2017; amended effective 11/1/2018.

Advisory Committee Notes

Paragraph (b) The preliminary statement of the case does not serve the same purpose as the opening statement presented after the jury is selected. The preliminary statement of the case serves only to provide a brief context in which the jurors might more knowledgeably answer questions during voir dire. A preliminary opening statement is not required and may serve no useful purpose in short trials or trials with relatively simple issues. The judge should be particularly attuned to prevent argument or posturing at this early stage of the trial.

Paragraph (e)(14). The Utah Supreme Court has noted a tendency of trial court judges to rule against a challenge for cause in the face of legitimate questions about a juror's biases. The Supreme Court limited the following admonition to capital cases, but it is a sound philosophy even in trials of lesser consequence.

We take this opportunity to address an issue of growing concern to this court. We are perplexed by the trial courts' frequent insistence on passing jurors for cause in death penalty cases when legitimate concerns about their suitability have been raised during voir dire. While the abuse-of-discretion standard of review affords trial courts wide latitude in making their for-cause determinations, we are troubled by their tendency to "push the edge of the envelope," especially when capital voir dire panels are so large and the death penalty is at issue. Moreover, capital cases are extremely costly, in terms of both time and money. Passing questionable jurors increases the drain on the state's resources and jeopardizes an otherwise valid conviction and/or sentence. ... If a party raises legitimate questions as to a potential juror's beliefs, biases, or physical ability to serve, the potential juror should be struck for cause, even where it would not be legally erroneous to refuse. State v. Carter, 888 P.2d 629 (Utah 1995).

In determining challenges for cause, the task of the judge is to find the proper balance. It is not the judge's duty to seat a jury from a too-small venire panel or to seat a jury as quickly as possible. Although thorough questioning of a juror to determine the existence, nature and extent of a bias is appropriate, it is not the judge's duty to extract the "right" answer from or to "rehabilitate" a juror. The judge should accept honest answers to understood questions and, based on that evidence, make the sometimes difficult decision to seat only those jurors the judge is convinced will act fairly and impartially. This higher duty demands a sufficient venire panel and sufficient voir dire. The trial court judge enjoys considerable discretion in limiting voir dire when there is no apparent link between a question and potential bias, but "when proposed voir dire questions go directly to the existence of an actual bias, that discretion disappears. The trial court must allow such inquiries." The court should ensure the parties have a meaningful opportunity to explore grounds for challenges for cause and to ask follow-up questions, either through direct questioning or questioning by the court.

The objective of a challenge for cause is to remove from the venire panel persons who cannot act impartially in deliberating upon a verdict. The lack of impartiality may be due to some bias for or against one of the parties; it may be due to an opinion about the subject matter of the action or about the action itself. The civil rules of procedure have a few-and the criminal rules many more-specific circumstances, usually a relationship with a party or a circumstance of the juror, from which the bias of the juror is inferred. In addition to these enumerated grounds for a challenge for cause, both the civil rules and the criminal rules close with the following grounds: formulation by the juror of a state of mind that will prevent the juror from acting impartially. However, the rules go on to provide that no person shall be disqualified as a juror by reason of having formed an opinion upon the matter if it satisfactorily appears to the court that the person will, notwithstanding that opinion, act impartially.

The amendments focus on the "state of mind" clause. In determining whether a person can act impartially, the court should focus not only on that person's state of mind but should consider the totality of the circumstances. These circumstances might include the experiences, conduct, statements, opinions, or associations of the juror. Rather than determining that the juror is "prevented" from acting impartially, the court should determine whether the juror "is not likely to act impartially." These amendments conform to the directive of the Supreme Court: If there is a legitimate question about the ability of a person to act impartially, the court should remove that person from the panel.

There is no need to modify this determination with the statement that a juror who can set aside an opinion based on public journals, rumors or common notoriety and act impartially should not be struck. Having read or heard of the matter and even having an opinion about the matter do not meet the standard of the rule. Well-informed and involved citizens are not automatically to be disqualified from jury service. Sound public policy supports knowledgeable, involved citizens as jurors. The challenge for the court is to evaluate the impact of this extra-judicial information on the ability of the person to act impartially. Information and opinions about the case remain relevant to but not determinative of the question: "Will the person be a fair and impartial juror?"

In stating that no person may serve as a juror unless the judge is "convinced" the juror will act impartially, the Committee uses the term "convinced" advisedly. The term is not intended to suggest the application of a clear and convincing standard of proof in determining juror impartiality, such a high standard being contrary to the Committee's objectives. Nor is the term intended to undermine the long-held presumption that potential jurors who satisfy the basic requirements imposed by statutes and rules are qualified to serve. Rather, the term is intended to encourage the trial judge to be thorough and deliberative in evaluating challenges for cause. Although not an evidentiary standard at all, the term "convinced" implies a high standard for judicial decision-making. Review of the decision should remain limited to an abuse of discretion.

This new standard for challenges for cause represents a balance more easily stated than achieved. These amendments encourage judges to exercise greater care in evaluating challenges for cause and to resolve legitimate doubts in favor of removal. This may mean some jurors now removed by peremptory challenge will be removed instead for cause. It may also mean the court will have to summon more prospective jurors for voir dire. Whether lawyers will use fewer peremptory challenges will have to await the judgment of experience.