1. (a) In addition to the challenges of jurors allowed in section 635-28, the State and defendant in criminal cases shall be allowed peremptory challenges as provided by section 635-30.
2. (b) In civil cases each party shall be allowed to challenge peremptorily three jurors, without assigning any reason therefor. Where there are two or more plaintiffs or two or more defendants, they may be considered as a single party for the purposes of making peremptory challenges, or the court may allow additional peremptory challenges and permit them to be exercised separately or jointly. If additional peremptory challenges are allowed to the parties on one side, the opposing party or parties may be allowed additional peremptory challenges.
3. (c) If an alternate juror or alternate jurors are to be impaneled, one or more additional peremptory challenges shall be allowed as provided by the rules of court.

[L 1903, c 38, §20; RL 1925, §2418; am L 1927, c 39, §1; am L 1932 1st, c 11, §1; RL 1935, §3736; RL 1945, §10112; RL 1955, §231-12; HRS §635-29; am L 1972, c 89, §2B(j)]

Rules of Court

Peremptory challenges in criminal cases, see HRPP rule 24(b).

Sequence for challenging jurors, see RCC rule 17(f).

Case Notes

Where four joint defendants joined in each of ten challenges, held that they had exercised their full right of challenge, although each would have been allowed ten challenges if taken separately. 3 H. 90 (1869).

Erroneous overriding of an objection to a juror by court avails nothing to the party objecting if party has not exhausted party's peremptory challenges. 8 H. 339 (1892).

Prejudicial if accused compelled to exhaust peremptory challenges. 23 H. 792 (1917).

Defendant's right to one peremptory challenge to alternate jurors under HRPP rule 24(c) is a right pertaining to all the alternate jurors and therefore defendant shall not be called upon to exercise the challenge until all potential alternate jurors have been examined and passed on challenges for cause. 79 H. 165 (App.), 880 P.2d 217 (1994).

Denial of defendant's statutory right to peremptorily challenge alternate jurors resulted in improper impaneling of alternate juror and was plain error. 82 H. 499 (App.), 923 P.2d 916 (1996).

Discussed: 86 H. 214, 948 P.2d 1055 (1997).

See 9 H. 522 (1894); 11 H. 293 (1898).