R.I. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 24

As amended through June 7, 2024

Rule 24 - Trial Jurors.

(a)Examination. The court may permit a defendant or the defendant's attorney and the attorney for the State to conduct the examination of prospective jurors or the court itself may conduct the examination. In the latter event, the court shall permit the defendant or the defendant's attorney and the attorney for the State to supplement the examination by further inquiry or, upon request, the court itself shall put to the prospective jurors such additional questions as are submitted by the parties or their attorneys. The examination of prospective jurors shall be for the purpose of determining whether a prospective juror is related to a party, or has any interest in the case, or has expressed or formed an opinion or is sensible of any bias or prejudice therein. The examination shall be conducted under oath if requested.

(b) Peremptory Challenges. If the offense charged is punishable by imprisonment for more than one (1) year, each side is entitled to six (6) peremptory challenges. If the offense charged is punishable by imprisonment for not more than one (1) year or by fine or both, each side is entitled to three (3) peremptory challenges. If the jury is impaneled in accordance with subdivision (c) of this rule, each side will be entitled to one (1) extra peremptory challenge if one (1) or two (2) additional jurors are to be impaneled and to two (2) extra peremptory challenges if more than two (2) additional jurors are to be impaneled. If there is more than one (1) defendant, the court may allow the defendants additional peremptory challenges.

(c)Alternate Jurors. The court in its discretion may direct the impaneling of a jury not to exceed (16) members, all having the same qualifications and impaneled and sworn in the same manner as a jury of 12. If a juror is excused after the juror has been sworn but before any opening statement is begun, another juror may be impaneled and sworn in the juror's place. All the jurors shall sit and hear the case, but the court for cause may excuse any of them from service provided the number of jurors is not reduced to less than twelve (12) or such other number stipulated to under Rule 23(b). If more than such number remains at the conclusion of the court's charge, the clerk in the presence of the court and the parties shall put the names of the remaining jurors in a box and from it shall draw twelve (12) names, or such other number stipulated to by the parties, to determine the issues. The court may order that jurors whose names have not been drawn be retained after the jury retires to deliberate, and the court may thereafter order that retained alternate juror(s) replace any deliberating juror(s) who, for good cause, as determined by the court, cannot continue to deliberate. The alternate juror(s) selected to replace deliberating juror(s) shall be drawn, as needed, from a box containing the names of the remaining alternate jurors. The court 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.

(d)Appointment of Foreperson. Prior to the time the jury retires to commence its deliberations, the court shall appoint one (1)of the jurors to act as foreperson.

R.I. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 24

Amended by Order dated June 22, 2017, effective 9/5/2017.

1972 Notes

Rule 24, although basically similar to existing Rhode Island practice, introduces some important changes. Subdivisions (a) and (b) are in large part patterned on Federal Rule 24; however, subdivisions (c) and (d) depart completely from the federal model.

Subdivision (a), which accords with G.L. 1956 (1969 Reenactment), § 9-10-14 (Supp.1970) differs from the federal rule in two principal respects. First, it gives to the parties or their attorneys the right, where the court has conducted the voir dire, to put supplemental questions to the jury after the court has completed the examination-in-chief. This conforms to § 9-10-14 which provides that counsel for either party shall not be precluded from examining prospective jurors. It differs from the federal rule which authorizes parties to examine jurors only if permitted to do so by the court. The other major departure from the federal rule is the addition of the third sentence which defines the permissible areas of inquiry on voir dire. This accords with § 9-10-14. Finally, the concluding sentence of this subdivision, authorizing the examination to be conducted under oath, is not contained in the federal rule.

Subdivision (b) reflects existing Rhode Island law except that it increases to six the number of peremptory challenges available to both the State and defendants in cases where the offense charged can be punished by more than one year imprisonment. See G.L. 1956 (1969 Reenactment), §§ 9-10-18 (authorizing one peremptory challenge for each four jurors); 12-17-4 (making the limitation contained in § 9-10-18 applicable to all criminal cases). Under Rule 24 the number of peremptory challenges in all other cases will be three. This increase is designed to bring Rhode Island practice into closer conformity with other Federal Rules' jurisdictions which typically permit a greater number of peremptory challenges than has Rhode Island in felony cases. E.g., Federal Rule 24(b) (twenty challenges in capital cases, ten challenges for defendants and six challenges for the government in felony cases, three challenges in all others); Rule 24(d), Alaska R.Cr.P. (same as federal rule, except no capital offenses); Rule 24(b)(1), Colorado R.Cr.P. (fifteen challenges in capital cases, ten challenges in felony cases and three challenges in all other cases; where there are multiple defendants the totals are increased to a maximum of thirty, twenty and ten, respectively); Rule 24(c)(3), Maine R.Cr.P. (ten challenges for the state and twenty for the defendant where life imprisonment is possible, eight challenges in other felony cases and four challenges in all remaining cases).

The rule retains the existing practice of limiting the total, combined number of challenges available to multiple defendants to the number permitted to a single defendant. See State v. Sutton, 10 R.I. 159, 161 (1872). The court is empowered, however, in such cases to permit additional challenges.

Subdivision (c), which deals with alternate jurors, is a complete departure from the federal rule as well as from existing Rhode Island practice under G.L. 1956 (1969 Reenactment), § 9-10-13. Under the rule the court may impanel a jury containing up to sixteen members, all of whom are considered regular jurors. If at the time the case is to be submitted for determination there are more than twelve jurors, or the number stipulated to by the parties, the clerk shall select by lot the names of those jurors who shall determine the issues. This provision, which is patterned upon Rule 1:8-2(c) of the New Jersey Court Rules, 1969, and Mass.Gen.Laws c. 234, § 26B, is intended to avoid having persons who are separately selected and are designated alternates from feeling a less immediate sense of participation in the proceedings than might a regular juror.

Provision for additional peremptory challenges when alternate jurors are impaneled has been included in subdivision (b).

Subdivision (d), which has no counterpart in the federal rules, provides for appointment of the jury foreman. Where more than twelve jurors are impaneled, the foreman ordinarily will not be designated until the final twelve jurors are drawn. The Court may, if deemed advisable, appoint the foreman upon the impaneling of the jury. Where only twelve (or the exact number stipulated to by the parties) are impaneled at the beginning of the trial, the court can appoint the foreman at any time before the jury retires to deliberate.