People v. Harding
| Decision Date | 06 March 1884 |
| Citation | 18 N.W. 555,53 Mich. 48 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. HARDING. |
The law creating a board of jury commissioners, to be appointed by the state senate, part of whom shall reside in the city of Detroit, and part in the county of Wayne, but outside of said city, whose duty it is to prepare lists of grand and petit jurors for the courts in Wayne county, is not unconstitutional either as impairing the right to jury trials, or as infringing upon the guaranty of local self-government for municipal governments.
The selection of jurors is not a duty that belongs necessarily to local officers, and does not involve an administration of local affairs.
If the incidents essential to a trial by jury remain unchanged, the legislature has the right to attach qualifications to the jurors, to secure a fair and intelligent jury, or to regulate the mode of selection, or name the persons to make the selection, so long as it is made by impartial persons, acting without bias or corruption.
Exceptions from recorder's court, Detroit.
J.J. Van Riper, for plaintiff.
John G Hawley, for defendant.
Harding was convicted in the recorder's court of the city of Detroit of the crime of larceny from a store in the day-time. After the jury were impaneled, and in proper time, the defendant interposed a challenge to the array, for the reason that the law under which they were selected is unconstitutional. In 1881 the legislature passed an act authorizing a board of jury commissioners for the county of Wayne, three of whom should reside within the corporate limits of the city of Detroit, and three outside, but within the county of Wayne. They were classified so that the term of office of two should expire every two years. The offices are to be filled by appointment made by the state senate on the nomination of the governor. The commissioners are required before entering upon their duties, to take the oath of office prescribed by the constitution of this state, and file the same in the office of the county clerk. They are to appoint one of their number president, and also appoint a secretary. A record of their proceedings is required to be kept, and they are to serve without pay except mileage. They are to be electors and freeholders of the county. A majority of them are to meet on the third Monday of May at the office of the county treasurer, and jointly proceed to select, from the persons assessed on the assessment rolls on file in the county treasurer's office of each township and ward of the county for the preceding year, lists of grand and petit jurors for the circuit court for the county of Wayne, in the manner provided by sections 8, 9, 10, and 11 of chapter 129 of the Compiled Laws of 1881. The lists are to be recorded at length in the journal of the board, and subscribed by at least a majority of the commissioners, and a duplicate thereof filed in the office of the county clerk, and this list is to be considered and treated by him as the lists mentioned in sections 13, 14, and 15 of said chapter. The commissioners are also to make lists of petit jurors for each of the municipal courts of record of the city of Detroit, to be taken from the assessment rolls of the wards of the city, in the same manner as the lists for the circuit courts, and these are to be filed with the clerks of the municipal courts respectively; and juries for these courts are to be drawn in the same manner as the circuit court. There are other provisions of the act, but the above are sufficient to an understanding of the question raised. It will be seen that no change was made in the existing law relative to the qualifications of jurors, or the lists from which their names should be selected. The objection goes only to the officers who make the selection, and the mode of their appointment.
It is claimed on behalf of the respondent that the constitution guaranties him a jury trial, and that by this is intended such a jury as was summoned at the common law at the time of the adoption of the constitution. Two provisions of the constitution are supposed to be infringed upon by this act,--one relating to the right of trial by jury, and the other to the written and unwritten guaranties of that instrument, which secures to municipalities the right of local self-government. "At common law it was requisite that all persons serving upon grand or petit juries should be good and lawful men; by which was intended that they must be liege subjects of the king, and neither aliens nor persons outlawed, attainted of any treason or felony, or convicted of any species of crimen falsi, as conspiracy or perjury, which may render them infamous." 1 Chit.Crim.Law, 307. By our statute (How.St. �� 7554, 7555) they are required to be electors, and persons who are in possession of their natural faculties, and not infirm or decrepit, of good character, of approved integrity, of sound judgment, and well informed, and conversant with the English language, and free from all legal exceptions. It will thus be seen the qualifications are to-day the same substantially as at common law. By the statute of 6 Geo. IV. c. 50, parliament attached certain property qualifications, and in this state the legislature has added certain qualifications to protect the rights of parties, and provide an intelligent and impartial jury. If the objection here urged to the persons who make the selection is good, it may for the same reason be said that the legislature has no right to make any change in the qualifications of jurors, or of the source from which they shall be selected, since such changes would affect the panel, and doubtless would cause it to be composed of different persons from what it would have been had the law remained the same as it was at the time the present constitution was adopted.
A brief review of the statutes upon the subject is proper in order to show what has been the course of legislation, both before and since the constitution of 1850, as tending to throw some light upon the question under consideration. Under the territorial act of 1820 the jury were selected by the sheriff from those having the right to vote for delegates to congress. Under the act of 1827, petit jurors were to be judicious persons, having the qualifications of electors, and they were selected and returned by the assessors of the towns, to the county clerks. In 1836, Michigan was admitted into the Union as a sovereign state, under a constitution previously adopted, in which it was declared that "the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate," and in criminal cases "the accused shall have the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the vicinage;" and in the Revised Statutes of 1838 it was provided that "all persons, being electors under the second article of the constitution of this state, shall be liable to be drawn and serve as jurors," except those exempted by the act. It was made the duty of the assessors and town clerk, at the time of their annual meeting, to review their assessment roll, to prepare a list of such inhabitants of the town, not exempted, as they shall think well qualified to serve as jurors, being persons of good moral character, of sound judgment, and free from all legal exceptions, and these lists were to be filed with the county clerk. In 1842 this law was amended so as to make it the duty of the assessor and alderman of each ward of the city of Detroit to prepare the lists of jurors in their respective wards in the same manner as the assessors of townships. These lists were to be signed by the assessor and alderman, and filed with the city clerk, and he was to transmit them to the county clerk. By the Revised Statutes of 1846, jurors were to have the qualifications of electors, and in making selection the officers were to take the names of such persons only as are not exempt from serving, "who are in possession of their natural faculties, and not infirm or decrepit, of fair character, of approved integrity, of sound judgment, and well informed, and free from all legal exceptions." The selection was to be made by assessors and township clerks of each township, and the assessor and alderman of each ward in the city of Detroit, from the assessment roll of the same year. This was the law which was in force when our present constitution was adopted, in 1850. It repeats the declaration contained in the former constitution, that "the right of trial by jury shall remain," and asserts that "in every criminal prosecution the accused shall have the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury, which may consist of less than twelve men in courts not of record; to be informed of the nature of the accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses against him, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and have the assistance of counsel for his defense."
Was it intended by this provision of the constitution that it would be incompetent for the legislature thereafter to change the law relative to the manner of selecting jurors, or to the person or officer who should make the selection, or the lists from which the selection should be made? In some states the selection is made from the registration list of voters. Would it not be competent for the legislature to so provide in this state? I think that it would. The only restriction upon the legislative power which oocurs to me is that jurors shall have the qualifications of electors, and that they shall reside in the vicinage. The latter idea has always been associated with the jury system in criminal cases in the jurisprudence of both England and America, and is as essential as that the number shall consist of 12. The trial by jury preceded Magna Charta, and was a well-known...
To continue reading
Request your trial