Colorado § 13-71-142 - Alternate jurors.

§ 13-71-142. Alternate jurors.

In all civil and criminal trials, the court may call and impanel alternate jurors to replace jurors who are disqualified or who the court may determine are unable to perform their duties prior to deliberation. Alternate jurors shall be summoned in the same manner, have the same qualifications, be subject to the same examination and challenges, take the same oath, and have the same functions, powers, and privileges as regular jurors. An alternate juror who does not replace a regular juror shall be discharged at the time the jury retires to consider its verdict, unless otherwise provided by law, by agreement of the parties, or by order of the court. The seating of an alternate juror entitles each party to an additional peremptory challenge, which may be exercised as to any prospective jurors.

Source: L. 89: Entire article R&RE, p. 774, § 1, effective January 1, 1990. L. 90: Entire section amended, p. 923, § 1, effective March 27. L. 91: Entire section amended, p. 428, § 2, effective May 24.

ANNOTATION

The purpose of seating an alternate juror is to have available another juror when, through unforeseen circumstances, a juror is unable to continue to serve. People v. Abbott, 690 P.2d 1263 (Colo. 1984); Hardesty v. Pino, 222 P.3d 336 (Colo. App. 2009).

A trial court is in the best position to evaluate whether a juror is unable to serve, and its decision to excuse a juror will not be disturbed absent a gross abuse of discretion. People v. Abbott, 690 P.2d 1263 (Colo. 1984); Hardesty v. Pino, 222 P.3d 336 (Colo. App. 2009).

A trial court is not required to conduct a more thorough investigation to make a factual determination regarding an absent juror's physical inability to continue. Hardesty v. Pino, 222 P.3d 336 (Colo. App. 2009).

Where some unforeseen circumstance unrelated to the merits of a case hampers a juror's continued ability to sit, replacing a juror with an alternate is in the nature of an administrative task. People v. Anderson, 183 P.3d 649 (Colo. App. 2007); Hardesty v. Pino, 222 P.3d 336 (Colo. App. 2009).

No error when court did not specifically instruct reconstituted jury that it must restart jury deliberation, completely disregarding the deliberations involving the replaced juror. Springs v. Perry, 8 P.3d 517 (Colo. App. 2000).