Sec. 51-241. Peremptory challenges in civil actions. - Connecticut Statutes

      Sec. 51-241. Peremptory challenges in civil actions. On the trial of any civil action to a jury, each party may challenge peremptorily three 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 section, 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.

      (1949 Rev., S. 7926; 1953, S. 3175d; 1959, P.A. 28, S. 100; 1971, P.A. 40, S. 2; P.A. 93-176, S. 1; P.A. 01-152, S. 1.)

      History: 1959 act deleted reference to action before justice of the peace; 1971 act allowed three challenges without exception where previously three challenges were allowed in trials with six-person juries and four challenges in trials with twelve-person juries, effective April 12, 1971, and applicable to all civil actions claimed for jury trial on and after that date; P.A. 93-176 added provision re peremptory challenges when the court determines a unity of interest exists and defined "unity of interest"; P.A. 01-152 added 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.

      This includes actions of forcible entry and detainer and summary process. 20 C. 510 et seq. And applications to reassess damages. 28 C. 566. Where there are several plaintiffs or defendants, each is entitled to four peremptory challenges. 128 C. 67. Not erroneous for clerk to refuse party's list containing more than four names of jurors as challenged. 132 C. 87. Employer who paid workmen's compensation, intervening in action by employee against third person, is entitled to four challenges. 133 C. 446. Cited. 134 C. 101. After a juror is accepted, a party has no right to a peremptory challenge. Id., 530. If each party has an independent cause of action the fact that the causes are combined in one complaint does not destroy the separate identities of the parties and each is entitled to the full number of challenges. 147 C. 333. Party has no right to peremptory challenge after accepting juror on conclusion of examination. 148 C. 596. Cited. 186 C. 632. Trial court has discretion to determine whether any unity of interest will trigger a limit on the number of peremptory challenges to be granted. 250 C. 443. 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. 266 C. 244.

      Cited. 42 CA 542. P.A. 93-176 cited. Id. No unity of interest where a jury might determine each party was negligent in separate and distinct manner and their interests were therefore antagonistic. 50 CA 539. Trial court improperly limited number of peremptory challenges on the ground that defendants had a unity of interest. 55 CA 460. Is within court's discretion whether to give each party bound by a unity of interest with another party individual peremptory challenges. 65 CA 738. Section does not allow court to grant additional peremptory challenges to only one side in a civil case. 84 CA 656.

      Cited. 41 CS 48.