Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.350
RULE 3.350. PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES
(a) Number. Each party shall be allowed the following
number of peremptory challenges:
(1) Felonies Punishable by Death or Imprisonment for
Life. Ten, if the offense charged is punishable by death or
imprisonment for life.
(2) All Other Felonies. Six, if the offense charged is a
felony not punishable by death or imprisonment for life.
(3) Misdemeanors. Three, if the offense charged is a
misdemeanor.
(b) Codefendants. If 2 or more defendants are jointly tried,
each defendant shall be allowed the number of peremptory
challenges specified above, and in such case the state shall be
allowed as many challenges as are allowed to all of the defendants.
(c) Multiple Counts and Multiple Charging Documents. If
an indictment or information contains 2 or more counts or if 2 or
more indictments or informations are consolidated for trial, the
defendant shall be allowed the number of peremptory challenges
that would be permissible in a single case, but in the interest of
justice the judge may use judicial discretion in extenuating
circumstances to grant additional challenges to the accumulated
maximum based on the number of charges or cases included when
it appears that there is a possibility that the state or the defendant
may be prejudiced. The state and the defendant shall be allowed an
equal number of challenges.
(d) Alternate Jurors. If 1 or 2 alternate jurors are called,
each party is entitled to 1 peremptory challenge, in addition to
those otherwise allowed by law, for each alternate juror so called.
The additional peremptory challenge may be used only against the
alternate juror and the other peremptory challenges allowed by law
shall not be used against the alternate juror.
(e) Additional Challenges. The trial judge may exercise
discretion to allow additional peremptory challenges when
appropriate.
Committee Notes
1968 Adoption. The suggested rule is a transcription of
section 913.08, Florida Statutes, excluding subdivision (5), which is
lifted from section 913.10(2), Florida Statutes, and included since
the several provisions relate to peremptory challenges. The question
was raised regarding multiple counts or consolidation in their
relation to the number of challenges. It was decided not to imply
approval of multiple counts or consolidation. The standing
committee on Florida court rules raised the question as to whether
or not this rule is procedural or substantive and directed the
subcommittee to call this fact to the attention of the supreme court.
1972 Amendment. Substantially same as prior rule;
introductory language modernized.
1977 Amendment. This proposed rule amends rule 3.350(e)
to allow the defendant and the state an equal number of
peremptory challenges and to permit the court to grant additional
challenges to both parties where it appears that the state would
otherwise be prejudiced.
1992 Amendment. The amendment adds (e) that specifically
sets out the trial court’s discretion to allow peremptory challenges
in addition to those provided for in the rule. This amendment was
one of several proposed by the jury management committee that
provided for a reduction in the number of peremptory challenges
allowed by the rule. The majority of the criminal procedure rules
committee, while recommending against adoption of the remaining
proposals of the jury management committee, nevertheless felt it
would be appropriate to add (e) to clarify that the trial court’s
discretion is not limited to those situations set out in (c) of the rule
(i.e., multiple counts or informations or indictments consolidated
for trial).
(a) Number. Each party shall be allowed the following
number of peremptory challenges:
(1) Felonies Punishable by Death or Imprisonment for
Life. Ten, if the offense charged is punishable by death or
imprisonment for life.
(2) All Other Felonies. Six, if the offense charged is a
felony not punishable by death or imprisonment for life.
(3) Misdemeanors. Three, if the offense charged is a
misdemeanor.
(b) Codefendants. If 2 or more defendants are jointly tried,
each defendant shall be allowed the number of peremptory
challenges specified above, and in such case the state shall be
allowed as many challenges as are allowed to all of the defendants.
(c) Multiple Counts and Multiple Charging Documents. If
an indictment or information contains 2 or more counts or if 2 or
more indictments or informations are consolidated for trial, the
defendant shall be allowed the number of peremptory challenges
that would be permissible in a single case, but in the interest of
justice the judge may use judicial discretion in extenuating
circumstances to grant additional challenges to the accumulated
maximum based on the number of charges or cases included when
it appears that there is a possibility that the state or the defendant
may be prejudiced. The state and the defendant shall be allowed an
equal number of challenges.
(d) Alternate Jurors. If 1 or 2 alternate jurors are called,
each party is entitled to 1 peremptory challenge, in addition to
those otherwise allowed by law, for each alternate juror so called.
The additional peremptory challenge may be used only against the
alternate juror and the other peremptory challenges allowed by law
shall not be used against the alternate juror.
(e) Additional Challenges. The trial judge may exercise
discretion to allow additional peremptory challenges when
appropriate.
Committee Notes
1968 Adoption. The suggested rule is a transcription of
section 913.08, Florida Statutes, excluding subdivision (5), which is
lifted from section 913.10(2), Florida Statutes, and included since
the several provisions relate to peremptory challenges. The question
was raised regarding multiple counts or consolidation in their
relation to the number of challenges. It was decided not to imply
approval of multiple counts or consolidation. The standing
committee on Florida court rules raised the question as to whether
or not this rule is procedural or substantive and directed the
subcommittee to call this fact to the attention of the supreme court.
1972 Amendment. Substantially same as prior rule;
introductory language modernized.
1977 Amendment. This proposed rule amends rule 3.350(e)
to allow the defendant and the state an equal number of
peremptory challenges and to permit the court to grant additional
challenges to both parties where it appears that the state would
otherwise be prejudiced.
1992 Amendment. The amendment adds (e) that specifically
sets out the trial court’s discretion to allow peremptory challenges
in addition to those provided for in the rule. This amendment was
one of several proposed by the jury management committee that
provided for a reduction in the number of peremptory challenges
allowed by the rule. The majority of the criminal procedure rules
committee, while recommending against adoption of the remaining
proposals of the jury management committee, nevertheless felt it
would be appropriate to add (e) to clarify that the trial court’s
discretion is not limited to those situations set out in (c) of the rule
(i.e., multiple counts or informations or indictments consolidated
for trial).