§ 51-243 — Alternate jurors in civil cases.

Connecticut § 51-243

• Jurisdiction: Connecticut
• Title 51: Courts
• Ch. 884: Jurors

Text

(a) In any civil action to be tried to the jury in the Superior Court, if it appears to the court that the trial is likely to be protracted, the court may, in its discretion, direct that, after a jury has been selected, two or more additional jurors shall be added to the jury panel, to be known as “alternate jurors”. Alternate jurors shall have the same qualifications and be selected and subject to examination and challenge in the same manner and to the same extent as the jurors constituting the regular panel. In any case when the court directs the selection of alternate jurors, each party may peremptorily challenge four jurors. Where the court determines a unity of interest exists, several plaintiffs or several defendants may be considered as a single party for the purpose of making challenges, or the court may allow additional peremptory challenges and permit them to be exercised separately or jointly. For the purposes of this subsection, a “unity of interest” means that the interests of the several plaintiffs or of the several defendants are substantially similar. A unity of interest shall be found to exist among parties who are represented by the same attorney or law firm. In addition, there shall be a presumption that a unity of interest exists among parties where no cross claims or apportionment complaints have been filed against one another. In all civil actions, the total number of peremptory challenges allowed to the plaintiff or plaintiffs shall not exceed twice the number of peremptory challenges allowed to the defendant or defendants, and the total number of peremptory challenges allowed to the defendant or defendants shall not exceed twice the number of peremptory challenges allowed to the plaintiff or plaintiffs. (b) Alternate jurors shall be sworn separately from those constituting the regular panel, and the oaths to be administered shall be as provided in section 1-25 . (c) Alternate jurors shall attend at all times upon trial of the action. They shall be seated when the case is on trial with or near the jurors constituting the regular panel, with equal opportunity to see and hear all matters adduced in the trial. (d) If, at any time, any juror shall, for any reason, become unable to further perform his or her duty, the court may excuse such juror. If any juror is so excused or dies, the court may order that an alternate juror who is designated by lot to be drawn by the clerk, shall become a part of the regular panel and the trial shall then proceed as though the alternate juror had been a member of the regular panel from the time when the trial was begun. If a juror becomes a member of the regular panel after deliberations have begun, the jury shall be instructed by the court that deliberations by the jury shall begin anew. (e) A juror selected to serve as an alternate shall not be segregated from the regular panel except when the case is given to the regular panel for deliberation at which time such alternate juror shall be dismissed from further service on the case or may remain in service under the direction of the court. See Sec. 54-82h re alternate jurors in criminal prosecutions.

Legislative History

(1949 Rev., S. 7911; 1953, S. 3163d; March, 1958, P.A. 27, S. 40; 1959, P.A. 28, S. 211; 1969, P.A. 518; 1971, P.A. 40, S. 3; P.A. 73-576, S. 2, 4; P.A. 74-183, S. 56, 291; P.A. 76-336, S. 17; 76-436, S. 106, 681; P.A. 77-452, S. 20, 72; P.A. 80-313, S. 56; P.A. 82-248, S. 130; 82-307, S. 4, 8; P.A. 93-176, S. 2; P.A. 01-152, S. 2; P.A. 12-133, S. 16.) History: 1959 act included circuit court; 1969 act amended Subsec. (c) to delete provision which had forbidden alternate jurors to counsel or confer with jurors on regular panel concerning trial matters unless they become part of regular panel, to allow substitution of alternate juror for juror at any time rather than “before the case is committed to the jury” and to add provision forbidding segregation of alternates from regular panel except during deliberation at which time alternates are dismissed from service; 1971 act amended provision re challenges in civil actions to allow four challenges in all cases where previously five challenges were allowed where trial was to twelve-person jury and four where trial was to six-person jury and substituted “Connecticut Correctional Institution, Somers” for “State Prison”; P.A. 73-576 amended provision re challenges in Subsec. (a) to allow eight challenges in all cases where offense is punishable by imprisonment for less than life where previously ten challenges were allowed in such cases tried to twelve-person jury and eight in cases tried to six-person jury and to allow four challenges in all other cases where previously five challenges were allowed in cases tried to twelve-person jury and four in cases tried to six-person jury, effective June 12, 1973, and applicable to all prosecutions claimed for jury trial on and after that date; P.A. 74-183 removed circuit court trials from purview of section, reflecting transfer of its functions to court of common pleas, effective December 31, 1974; P.A. 76-336 specified that eight challenges allowed where imprisonment is “for more than one year”; P.A. 76-436 deleted specific reference to Somers Correctional Institution in Subsec. (a), effective July 1, 1978; P.A. 77-452 made technical correction in Subsec. (a); P.A. 80-313 removed criminal prosecutions from purview of section and deleted provision re number of challenges allowed in certain categories of criminal prosecutions; P.A. 82-248 rephrased the section and redesignated parts of former Subsec. (c) as new Subsecs. (d) and (e); P.A. 82-307 amended Subsec. (a) by changing the number of alternate jurors from “one or two” to two “or more” and amended Subsec. (c) to reflect this change; P.A. 93-176 amended Subsec. (a) to add provision re peremptory challenges when the court determines a unity of interest exists and define “unity of interest”; P.A. 01-152 amended Subsec. (a) to add provisions that a unity of interest shall be found to exist among parties represented by the same attorney or law firm, that there shall be a presumption that a unity of interest exists among parties where no cross complaints or apportionment complaints have been filed and that the total number of peremptory challenges allowed to one side shall not exceed twice the number allowed to the other side; P.A. 12-133 amended Subsec. (d) by adding provision re jury instruction if juror becomes a member of the regular panel after deliberations have begun, amended Subsec. (e) by adding provision re alternate juror may remain in service when case is given to regular panel for deliberation, and made technical changes. Cited. 144 C. 295; 182 C. 419; 186 C. 632; 187 C. 73; 191 C. 62. Single party has no legal entitlement to multiple sets of challenges when distinct causes of action have been consolidated; the granting of more challenges than provided by law is subject to review for abuse of discretion; in conducting appellate review, court must consider whether granting the challenges harmed either party or was inconsistent with an efficient and orderly judicial process. 268 C. 244. Cited. 17 CA 121; 25 CA 702; 42 CA 542. Cited. 41 CS 48. Juror excused from trial in process because of stress and strain resulting from his check problems held valid compliance with statute. 6 Conn. Cir. Ct. 439. Subsec. (a): Jury obtained by a party who exercises peremptory challenges not required by law is not a biased jury, but, by allowing such party to exclude jurors suspected of bias or partiality, is a fair and impartial jury. 279 C. 622. Subsec. does not allow court to grant additional peremptory challenges to only one side in a civil case. 84 CA 656.