| 33 | | - | Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona: Section 1. Title 21, chapter 3, article 2, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding section 21-316, to read: START_STATUTE21-316. Peremptory challenges In a civil action in the superior court, each party is entitled to four peremptory challenges as follows: 1. Beginning with the plaintiff, each party shall alternate striking jurors until all challenges are used or waived. If a party does not use a peremptory challenge, the party waives any remaining peremptory challenges. If A party waives a peremptory challenge, the waiver does not affect any other party's remaining peremptory challenges. 2. The court may allow a party additional peremptory challenges If two or more parties on the same side have adverse or hostile interests. If the court allows a party additional peremptory challenges, the court shall allow an equal number of peremptory challenges to the party or parties on the other side. If any party is unable to agree on the distribution of peremptory challenges, the court shall equally distribute the additional peremptory challenges. END_STATUTE Sec. 2. Legislative findings The legislature finds that: 1. The Arizona supreme court accurately stated in State v. Thompson, 68 Ariz. 386 (1949), that peremptory challenges involve a "substantial rather than a mere procedural or technical right and should be fully enforced as an aid in securing an impartial jury." 2. The Arizona supreme court's elimination of peremptory challenges in jury selection in civil trials on August 30, 2021 through Rule Petition No. R-21-0020 has resulted in concerns about increased risk of biased juries, the potential for strategic manipulation in jury selection and concerns about fairness and due process, impeding a party's right to a fair trial especially in complex cases. 3. Based on the findings in paragraph 1 of this section, the legislature intends to restore a limited number of peremptory strikes in civil actions to facilitate each side's right to a fair and impartial jury, retain the protections of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), and require the avowal and finding prescribed by this section without regard to whether a Batson challenge has been raised. |
|---|
| 67 | + | |
|---|
| 68 | + | |
|---|
| 69 | + | Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona: Section 1. Appropriation; department of public safety; Yavapai county sheriff's department; redundant communication system The sum of $500,000 is appropriated from the state general fund in fiscal year 2025-2026 to the department of public safety to distribute to the Yavapai county sheriff's department to establish a pilot program implementing a redundant high-speed, low-latency satellite communication system. |
|---|
| 39 | | - | START_STATUTE21-316. Peremptory challenges |
|---|
| 40 | | - | |
|---|
| 41 | | - | In a civil action in the superior court, each party is entitled to four peremptory challenges as follows: |
|---|
| 42 | | - | |
|---|
| 43 | | - | 1. Beginning with the plaintiff, each party shall alternate striking jurors until all challenges are used or waived. If a party does not use a peremptory challenge, the party waives any remaining peremptory challenges. If A party waives a peremptory challenge, the waiver does not affect any other party's remaining peremptory challenges. |
|---|
| 44 | | - | |
|---|
| 45 | | - | 2. The court may allow a party additional peremptory challenges If two or more parties on the same side have adverse or hostile interests. If the court allows a party additional peremptory challenges, the court shall allow an equal number of peremptory challenges to the party or parties on the other side. If any party is unable to agree on the distribution of peremptory challenges, the court shall equally distribute the additional peremptory challenges. END_STATUTE |
|---|
| 46 | | - | |
|---|
| 47 | | - | Sec. 2. Legislative findings |
|---|
| 48 | | - | |
|---|
| 49 | | - | The legislature finds that: |
|---|
| 50 | | - | |
|---|
| 51 | | - | 1. The Arizona supreme court accurately stated in State v. Thompson, 68 Ariz. 386 (1949), that peremptory challenges involve a "substantial rather than a mere procedural or technical right and should be fully enforced as an aid in securing an impartial jury." |
|---|
| 52 | | - | |
|---|
| 53 | | - | 2. The Arizona supreme court's elimination of peremptory challenges in jury selection in civil trials on August 30, 2021 through Rule Petition No. R-21-0020 has resulted in concerns about increased risk of biased juries, the potential for strategic manipulation in jury selection and concerns about fairness and due process, impeding a party's right to a fair trial especially in complex cases. |
|---|
| 54 | | - | |
|---|
| 55 | | - | 3. Based on the findings in paragraph 1 of this section, the legislature intends to restore a limited number of peremptory strikes in civil actions to facilitate each side's right to a fair and impartial jury, retain the protections of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), and require the avowal and finding prescribed by this section without regard to whether a Batson challenge has been raised. |
|---|
| 75 | + | The sum of $500,000 is appropriated from the state general fund in fiscal year 2025-2026 to the department of public safety to distribute to the Yavapai county sheriff's department to establish a pilot program implementing a redundant high-speed, low-latency satellite communication system. |
|---|