- Drunk driving offenses. State v. Hamm, 121 N.J.
at 122-29. - Disorderly persons gambling offense. State v.
Tenriero, 183 N.J.Super. 519, 523-24 (Law Div. 1981). - Attorney fee disputes. Application of LiVolsi, 85
N.J. 576, 581-82 (1981). - Hearing on mental competency issue, unless
alleged incompetent or person on his or her behalf
requests one. N.J.S.A. 3B:12-24; In re D.K., 204
N.J.Super. 205, 217 (Ch. Div. 1985); In re Schiller, 148
N.J.Super. 168, 179-80 (Ch. Div. 1977).
C. No right to Non-jury Trial
Although an accused charged with a crime has a
constitutional right to a jury trial, no correlative
constitutional right exists to a trial by a judge alone.
Accordingly, no constitutional infirmity arises from
denying defendant’s request to waive a jury trial. State v.
Dunne, 124 N.J. 303, 310-11 (1991); State v. Davidson,
225 N.J.Super. 1, 8-9 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 111 N.J.
594 (1988). Defendant in a capital murder trial has no
“automatic right to insist on a non-jury determination of
the sentencing issues.” State v. Biegenwald, 106 N.J. 13,
48 (1987); see State v. DiFrisco, 118 N.J. 253, 283
(1990); N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3c(1); R. 1:8-1(a).
II. NUMBER OF JURORS REQUIRED ON
PANEL
R. 1:8-2(a) provides that in criminal cases a
deliberating jury shall consist of 12 persons. Except in a
capital case, at any time before the verdict the parties may
stipulate in writing, and with the court’s approval, that
the jury can consist of any number less than 12. State v.
Hightower, 146 N.J. 239, 262-63 (1996); State v. Dunns,
266 N.J.Super. 349, 366 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 134
N.J. 567 (1993).
The United States Supreme Court concluded that a
12 person jury is not a constitutional necessity, but a
panel of less than 6 is inadequate. Ballew v. Georgia, 435
U.S. 223, 239-45 (1978); Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S.
78, 86-103 (1970).
R. 1:8-2 sets no specific number of alternate jurors.
State v. Williams, 113 N.J. 393, 445 n.13 (1988); see
N.J.S.A. 2B:23-3.
III. VOIR DIRE; EXCUSAL FOR CAUSE;
PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES
A. Generally- R. 1:8-3 addresses:
examination of jurors, challenges in the array,
peremptory challenges in criminal actions, and order of
exercising peremptory challenges. See N.J.S.A. 2B:23-10
and 13. Traditionally, voir dire standards and procedures
rest within the trial court’s broad discretion. State v.
Papasavvas, 163 N.J. 565, 595 (2000); State v. Hunt,
115 N.J. 330, 362 (1989). While the right to
peremptory challenges is not fundamental, it is
substantial. State v. Dishon, 297 N.J.Super. 254, 272
(App. Div.), certif. denied, 149 N.J. 144 (1997); State v.
Scher, 278 N.J.Super. 249, 262 (App. Div. 1994), certif.
denied, 140 N.J. 276 (1995). Trial courts cannot avoid
asking certain questions simply because the answers may
be unfavorable to a party, and should explain to
prospective jurors that an indictment is not evidence of
guilt, ask if close family members or friends have been
accused of violating the law, ask if they have previously
served on a grand or civil jury, and explain that they judge
the facts and that the court decides the law. State v. Oates,
246 N.J.Super. 261, 267-68 (App. Div. 1991); see State
v. Loftin, 287 N.J.Super. 76, 104-05 (App. Div.), certif.
denied, 144 N.J. 175 (1996).Where defendant does not exhaust peremptory
challenges during jury voir dire, any error attendant to the
trial court’s refusal to excuse a juror for cause, which
causes defendant to use such a challenge, is harmless.
State v. Bey, 112 N.J. 123, 152-54 (1988); State v.
Wilson, 266 N.J.Super. 681, 682-86 (App. Div. 1993).
Likewise, error in failing to remove a prospective juror for
cause -- a challenge to be made before evidence is
presented -- because he or she will automatically vote for
the death penalty if defendant is guilty of murder is
harmless where defendant removes that potential juror
via a peremptory challenge. Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S.
81, 85-88 (1988); State v. Reynolds, 124 N.J. 559, 566
(1991).Use of a struck jury system (where peremptory
challenges are used only when an adequate number of
potential jurors have been qualified) is left to the trial
court’s sound discretion. State v. Bey, 112 N.J. at 150-51;
State v. Ramseur, 106 N.J. at 239-43; State v. Halsey, 218
N.J.Super. 149, 162-64 (Law Div. 1987) (struck jury
system may be appropriate in capital murder trials
involving multiple homicides).