Opinion ID: 2072259
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Defendant's Motion for Additional Peremptory Challenges

Text: After defendant had exhausted all his peremptory challenges, he moved for additional peremptory challenges. The trial judge denied this motion. Defendant contends that this denial was an abuse of discretion. Reasonable limits on the right of peremptory challenge, including a maximum number of peremptory challenges, are necessary if the judicial process is to function effectively. ( People v. Moss (1985), 108 Ill.2d 270, 91 Ill.Dec. 617, 483 N.E.2d 1252.) Supreme Court Rule 434(d) (134 Ill.2d R. 434(d)) establishes the number of peremptory challenges that the parties may normally use in criminal cases. Rule 434(d) does not grant the trial judge discretion to allow additional peremptory challenges. The trial judge noted that both sides had taken care in the use of their peremptory challenges. He determined that there was no viable reason for allowing additional peremptory challenges. Nothing in the record suggests that defendant required additional peremptory challenges to assure an impartial jury. Because we believe that additional peremptory challenges were not necessary, we need not consider here whether trial judges have discretion to grant peremptory challenges in addition to those provided by rule.