Opinion ID: 1136816
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: peremptory disqualification

Text: Both appellants [31] claim that the trial court erred in ruling that all three defendants were allowed only one peremptory disqualification of a judge under AS 22.20.022 [32] and Criminal Rule 25. [33] We believe that each side is entitled to only one peremptory challenge. Therefore, the trial court did not err. In Peterson v. State, 562 P.2d 1350 (Alaska 1977), the appellant argued that AS 22.20.022 provides a party and his attorney each with a peremptory challenge and, to the extent that Criminal Rule 25(d) attempts to limit that substantive right to one challenge between the two of them, it is invalid. We rejected this argument, concluding that under Criminal Rule 25 and AS 22.20.022, the defense and the state are each entitled to only one peremptory challenge. Similarly we believe that where there are several defendants in a criminal trial, each individual defendant is not entitled to one peremptory challenge, but rather the defense as a whole is entitled, as a matter of right, to but one peremptory challenge. [34] Our rule does provide that where the defendants cannot agree on the judge to hear the case the trial court, in the interest of justice, can give more than one change. Here no showing of divergent interests or other cause was made requiring the judge, in the interests of justice, to grant additional challenges. There is no constitutional right to a peremptory challenge. To allow each defendant a peremptory challenge would cause great delays and trial scheduling problems. We conclude that when, as here, the defendants have substantially similar interests, it is not an abuse of discretion to limit the defense to one peremptory challenge. [35] Any other challenges must be for cause. Here there were no challenges for cause. We hold that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for an additional peremptory challenge.