Chapter 1 JURIES — KINDS AND DEFINITIONS

Section.

§ 2-101. Jury defined.

A jury is a body of men or women, or both, temporarily selected from the citizens of a particular county and invested with power to present or indict a person for a public offense or to try a question of fact.

History.

C.C.P. 1881, § 73; R.S., R.C., & C.L., § 3935; C.S., § 6512; I.C.A.,§ 2-101; am. 1943, ch. 158, § 1, p. 320; am. 2000, ch. 70, § 1, p. 153.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Civil cases, formation of jury, Idaho R. Civ. P. 47.

Criminal cases, formation of jury,§§ 19-1905 to 19-1908.

Number of jurors,Idaho Const., Art. I, § 7;§§ 2-103, 2-105.

Right to trial by jury,Idaho Const., Art. I, § 7.

Three-fourths verdict,Idaho Const., Art. I, § 7;§ 2-104.

Waiver of trial by jury,Idaho Const., Art. I, § 7.

Will contests, jury in,§ 15-1-306.

§ 2-102. Kinds of juries.

Juries are of three (3) kinds:

  1. Grand juries.
  2. Trial juries.
  3. Juries of inquest.
History.

C.C.P. 1881, § 74; R.S., R.C., & C.L., § 3936; C.S., § 6513; I.C.A.,§ 2-102.

§ 2-103. Grand jury defined.

A grand jury is a body of men or women or both, sixteen (16) in number, returned in pursuance of law from citizens of the county before a court of competent jurisdiction and sworn to inquire of public offenses committed or triable within the county.

History.

C.C.P. 1881, § 75; R.S., R.C., & C.L., § 3936; C.S., § 6513; I.C.A.,§ 2-102; am. 1953, ch. 87, § 1, p. 118.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Formation of grand jury,§ 19-1001 et seq.

Order for grand jury, Idaho R. Crim. P. 6.

Powers and duties of grand jury,§ 19-1101 et seq.

Presentment and proceedings thereon,§ 19-1201 et seq.

CASE NOTES

Grand Jury.

Grand jury is required to consist of 16 members, but 12 jurors constitute a quorum. Rich v. Varian, 36 Idaho 355, 210 P. 1011 (1922).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.
C.J.S.
A.L.R.

§ 2-104. Trial jury defined — Verdict in civil actions.

A trial jury is a body of men or women, or both, returned from the citizens of a particular county before a court or officer of competent jurisdiction and sworn to try and determine by a verdict a question of fact. Three-fourths (3/4) of the jury may render a verdict in a civil action, and such verdict shall have the same effect as a unanimous verdict.

History.

C.C.P. 1881, § 76; R.S., § 3938; am. 1890-1891, p. 165, § 1; reen. 1899, p. 110, § 1; reen. R.C. & C.L., § 3938; C.S., § 6515; I.C.A.,§ 2-104; am. 1943, ch. 158, § 2, p. 320; am. 2000, ch. 70, § 2, p. 153.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Civil cases, formation of jury, Idaho R. Civ. P. 47.

Criminal cases, formation of jury,§§ 19-1905 to 19-1908.

Right to jury trial,Idaho Const., Art. I, § 7.

CASE NOTES

Citizenship.

Citizenship always has been a qualification for jury service, but every person possessing qualifications of elector has not been always included among those eligible for jury duty. State v. Kelley, 39 Idaho 668, 229 P. 659 (1924).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.
C.J.S.

§ 2-105. Constitution of trial jury.

A trial jury consists of twelve (12) men or women or both: provided, that in civil actions the jury may consist of any number less than twelve (12) upon which the parties may agree in open court: and provided, further, that in cases of misdemeanor and in civil actions involving not more than five hundred dollars ($500), exclusive of costs, the jury shall consist of not more than six (6).

History.

R.S., § 3939; compiled R.C., § 3939; reen. C.L., § 3939; C.S., § 6516; I.C.A.,§ 2-105; am. 1965, ch. 80, § 2, p. 130; am. 1978, ch. 80, § 1, p. 155.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Alternate jurors,§ 19-1904.

§ 2-106. Jury of inquest defined.

A jury of inquest is a body of men or women, or both, summoned from the citizens of a particular county, before the sheriff, coroner, or other ministerial officer to inquire of particular facts.

History.

C.C.P. 1881, § 78; R.S., R.C., & C.L., § 3940; C.S., § 6517; I.C.A.,§ 2-106; am. 2000, ch. 70, § 3, p. 153.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Coroners’ inquest,§ 19-4301 et seq.

Chapter 2 JURY SELECTION AND SERVICE

Section.

§ 2-201. Title of act.

This act may be cited as the “Uniform Jury Selection and Service Act.”

History.

1971, ch. 169, § 21, p. 799.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Court rules regarding juries, Idaho R. Civ. P. 47; Idaho R. Crim. P. 24.

Prior Laws.

Former§ 2-201, which comprised C.C.P. 1881, § 79; R.S., R.C., & C.L., § 3941; C.S., § 6518; I.C.A.,§ 2-201; am. 1943, ch. 158, § 3, p. 320, was repealed by S.L. 1971, ch. 169, § 23.

Compiler’s Notes.

The words “this act” refer to S.L. 1971, ch. 169, which is compiled as§§ 2-201 to 2-221.

CASE NOTES

Minority Representation.

A jury panel selected in accordance with this chapter met constitutional standards, even though the jury did not include persons similar to defendant who had a Spanish-American background, where there was no evidence that such persons were systematically excluded. State v. Gerhardt, 97 Idaho 603, 549 P.2d 262 (1976).

Cited

State v. Padilla, 101 Idaho 713, 620 P.2d 286 (1980); Floyd v. State, 135 Idaho 379, 17 P.3d 880 (Ct. App. 2000).

§ 2-202. Policy of state.

It is the policy of this state that all persons selected for jury service be selected at random from a fair cross section of the population of the area served by the court, and that all qualified citizens have the opportunity, in accordance with this act to be considered for jury service in this state and an obligation to serve as jurors when summoned for that purpose.

History.

1971, ch. 169, § 1, p. 799.

STATUTORY NOTES

Prior Laws.

Former§ 2-202, which comprised C.C.P. 1881, § 80; R.S., R.C., & C.L., § 3942; C.S., § 6519; I.C.A.,§ 2-202, was repealed by S.L. 1971, ch. 169, § 23.

Compiler’s Notes.

The words “this act” refer to S.L. 1971, ch. 169, which is compiled as§§ 2-201 to 2-221.

CASE NOTES

Age of Jurors and Defendant.

In prosecution for possession of marijuana where defendant was 32 and average age of juror was 47, the fact that jury panel was older than cross section of county is not material where the act is followed and there is nothing in record to indicate a systematic exclusion of an identifiable class of people. State v. Pontier, 95 Idaho 707, 518 P.2d 969 (1974).

Fair Cross Section.

Plaintiff, who was a Native American, was not denied her guarantee to a jury of one’s peers, where there was no evidence in the record to support the assertion that the panel, from which the jury was selected, was not a fair and random cross section of the population of the county. McCandless v. Pease, — Idaho —, 465 P.3d 1104 (2020).

Cited

State v. Silcox, 103 Idaho 483, 650 P.2d 625 (1982).

§ 2-203. Discrimination prohibited.

A citizen shall not be excluded from jury service in this state on account of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or economic status.

History.

1971, ch. 169, § 2, p. 799.

STATUTORY NOTES

Prior Laws.

Former§ 2-203 which comprised C.C.P. 1881, § 81; R.S., R.C., & C.L., § 3943; C.S., § 6520; I.C.A.,§ 2-203; am. 1943, ch. 158, § 4, p. 320; am. 1969, ch. 124, § 1, p. 384, was repealed by S.L. 1971, ch. 169, § 23.

CASE NOTES

Decisions Under Prior Law
Racial Discrimination.

Defendant, a quarter-breed Indian, could not complain that no Negroes, Greeks or Italians were placed on the jury list since he was not a member of any of those races. State v. Walters, 61 Idaho 341, 102 P.2d 284 (1940).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.
C.J.S.
ALR.

Racial, religious, economic, social or political prejudice of proposed juror as proper subject of inquiry or ground of challenge on voir dire in civil case. 95 A.L.R.3d 172.

Beliefs regarding capital punishment as disqualifying juror in capital case for cause. 39 A.L.R.3d 550.

Jury: membership in racially biased or prejudiced organization as proper subject of voir dire inquiry or ground for challenge. 63 A.L.R.3d 1052.

Racial or ethnic prejudice of prospective jurors as proper subject of inquiry or ground of challenge on voir dire in state criminal case. 94 A.L.R.3d 15.

Religious belief, affiliation, or prejudice of prospective juror as proper subject of inquiry or ground for challenge on voir dire. 95 A.L.R.3d 172.

Deafness of juror as grounds for impeaching verdict, or securing new trial or reversal on appeal. 38 A.L.R.4th 1170. Purposeful inclusion of Negroes in grand or petit jury as unconstitutional discrimination. 4 A.L.R. Fed. 449.

Voir dire examination of prospective jurors under rule 24(a) of federal rules of criminal procedure. 28 A.L.R. Fed. 26.

§ 2-204. Definitions.

As used in this chapter:

  1. “Court” means district courts of this state, including the magistrates division, and includes, when the context requires, any judge of the court;
  2. “Clerk” and “clerk of the court” mean the duly elected and acting clerk of the district court and ex officio auditor and recorder and duly appointed deputies;
  3. “Master jury list” means the voter registration lists for the county which shall be supplemented with names from other sources prescribed pursuant to section 2-206, Idaho Code, in order to foster the policy and protect the rights secured by sections 2-202 and 2-203, Idaho Code;
  4. “Voter registration lists” means the most current official records, maintained by the county clerk, of persons registered to vote in any national, state, county, or municipal election;
  5. “Jury selection system” means any physical device or automated system for the management of the names or identifying numbers of prospective jurors;
  6. “Prospective jury panel” means the list of names or identifying numbers of prospective jurors drawn at random from the master jury list pursuant to section 2-208, Idaho Code, and who are not disqualified pursuant to section 2-209, Idaho Code.
History.

1971, ch. 169, § 3, p. 799; am. 1978, ch. 82, § 1, p. 156; am. 2001, ch. 28, § 1, p. 34; am. 2005, ch. 190, § 1, p. 583.

STATUTORY NOTES

Prior Laws.

Former§ 2-204, which comprised R.S., R.C., & C.L., § 3944, C.S., § 6521; I.C.A.,§ 2-204, was repealed by S.L. 1971, ch. 169, § 23.

§ 2-205. Jury commissions established — Composition — Qualifications of commissioners — Expenses and compensation.

A jury commission is established in each county to manage the jury selection process under the supervision and control of the court. The jury commission shall be composed of the clerk of the district court and a jury commissioner appointed by the administrative judge. The jury commissioner shall serve until a successor is appointed and qualifies. The jury commissioner must be a citizen of the United States and a resident in the county in which the jury commissioner serves. The jury commissioner may be reimbursed for travel, subsistence, and other necessary expenses incurred in the performance of jury commission duties and may receive compensation at a per diem rate fixed by the administrative judge and payable from county funds, if not otherwise a county employee.

History.

1971, ch. 169, § 4, p. 799; am. 1974, ch. 26, § 6, p. 804; am. 1998, ch. 71, § 1, p. 265; am. 2002, ch. 94, § 1, p. 256; am. 2005, ch. 190, § 2, p. 583.

STATUTORY NOTES

Prior Laws.

Former§ 2-205, which comprised C.C.P. 1881, § 82; R.S., R.C., & C.L., § 3945; C.S., § 6522; I.C.A.,§ 2-205, regarding grounds for excuse, was repealed by S.L. 1971, ch. 169, § 23.

CASE NOTES

Officer as Jury Consultant.

The investigating officer was acting in the capacity of a jury consultant, not as a jury commissioner, and as a consultant, the officer could do no more than assist the prosecution in the exercise of their general and preemptory challenges. Floyd v. State, 135 Idaho 379, 17 P.3d 880 (Ct. App. 2000).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.
C.J.S.

§ 2-206. Master and county jury lists of registered voters — Supplementation by other lists designated by supreme court — List available to commission — Open to public inspection.

  1. The jury commission for each county shall compile and maintain a county jury list consisting of the current voter registration list for the county supplemented with names from other lists of persons resident therein, such as lists of utility customers, property taxpayers, motor vehicle registrations, drivers’ licenses, and state identification cards, which the supreme court from time to time designates. The supreme court shall initially designate the other lists within ninety (90) days following the effective date of this act and exercise the authority to designate from time to time in order to foster the policy and protect the rights secured by sections 2-202 and 2-203, Idaho Code. In the alternative, and upon the consent of the supreme court, a jury commission may use the supreme court jury platform, including the county jury list derived therefrom, instead of compiling and maintaining a separate county jury list of its own.
  2. The supreme court shall compile and maintain a master jury list consisting of the current voter registration for the state supplemented with names from other lists of persons designated under subsection (1) of this section. The master jury list compiled and maintained by the supreme court shall be divided into county jury lists for use by the jury commissions authorized to use the supreme court jury platform.
  3. In compiling the master and county jury lists, the jury commission and the supreme court shall avoid duplication of names.
  4. Whoever has custody, possession, or control of any of the lists used in compiling the master or county jury lists, including those designated under subsection (1) of this section by the supreme court as supplementary sources of names, shall electronically transfer the list, including any changes, deletions and additions, and at the request of the jury commission or the supreme court, the custodian shall prepare a hard copy of the list and make the custodian’s records, from which the list was compiled, available for inspection, reproduction, and copying at all reasonable times.
  5. The master and county jury lists shall be open to the public for examination as provided by supreme court rule.
History.

1971, ch. 169, § 5, p. 799; am. 2005, ch. 190, § 3, p. 583; am. 2019, ch. 222, § 1, p. 682.

STATUTORY NOTES

Prior Laws.
Amendments.

The 2019 amendment, by ch. 222, inserted “and county” in the section heading; in subsection (1), substituted “county jury list” for “master jury list” near the beginning of the first sentence and added the last sentence; added present subsection (2); redesignated former subsections (2) to (4) as subsections (3) to (5); rewrote present subsection (3), which formerly read: “In compiling the master jury list, the jury commission shall avoid duplication of names”; in present subsection (4), substituted “master or county jury lists” for “master jury list” near the beginning and inserted “or the supreme court” near the end; and substituted “master and county jury lists” for “master jury list” near the beginning of subsection (5).

Compiler’s Notes.

The phrase “effective date of this act,” in subsection (1), refers to the effective date of S.L. 1971, Chapter 169, which was March 20, 1971.

Effective Dates.

Section 7 of S.L. 2019, ch. 222 declared an emergency. Approved March 25, 2019.

CASE NOTES

Age of Jurors.

In prosecution for possession of marijuana where defendant was 32 and average age of juror was 47, the fact that jury panel was older than cross section of county is not material where the act is followed and there is nothing in record to indicate a systematic exclusion of an identifiable class of people. State v. Pontier, 95 Idaho 707, 518 P.2d 969 (1974).

Compilation of List.

Where the defendant made no argument, nor did the record indicate, that the lack of participation by one member of the two-member jury commission in the preparation and compilation of the jury lists affected the random nature or objectivity of the selection process, the compilation of the jury lists by the one member unaided by the other member was valid since the defendant did not establish nor even argue that any prejudice resulted therefrom. State v. Silcox, 103 Idaho 483, 650 P.2d 625 (1982), overruled on other grounds, State v. Flint, 114 Idaho 806, 761 P.2d 1158 (1988).

Source of List.

In an appeal from convictions of burglary challenging the constitutionality of the jury selection process, where the evidence showed that Hispanics, who accounted for 8.2 percent of the county population, were underrepresented in the jury pool by an absolute disparity of five percent and were 61 percent less likely than the average members of the community to be called for jury service, such figures, taken together, were sufficient to show a lack of “fair and reasonable” representation, thereby imposing upon the state an obligation to justify the underrepresentation. However, the state met this burden by showing that the master jury list was derived from county lists of adult, licensed drivers and registered voters, since such source lists are commonly used and serve a significant state interest in maintaining an efficient, practical jury selection system. State v. Lopez, 107 Idaho 726, 692 P.2d 370 (Ct. App. 1984). Source of List.

The state is entitled to use voter registration and driver’s license lists as a means of selecting jurors, and the state may establish minimum qualifications for jurors where the qualifications relate to the juror’s competence to understand and administer the law. State v. Paz, 118 Idaho 542, 798 P.2d 1 (1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1259, 111 S. Ct. 2911, 115 L. Ed. 2d 1074 (1991), overruled on other grounds, State v. Card, 121 Idaho 425, 825 P.2d 1081 (1991).

The state is free to designate the source of jury lists, so long as the source reasonably reflects a cross-section of the population suitable in character and intelligence for that civic duty. State v. Paz, 118 Idaho 542, 798 P.2d 1 (1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1259, 111 S. Ct. 2911, 115 L. Ed. 2d 1074 (1991), overruled on other grounds, State v. Card, 121 Idaho 425, 825 P.2d 1081 (1991).

Voter Registration List.

Where trial court drew jury venire exclusively from voter registration lists because lists of motor vehicle registrations and utility customers were not yet finished by office of administrative director of the courts, trial court’s action did not violate the requirements of this section and Idaho R. Civ. P. 47(a). State v. Padilla, 101 Idaho 713, 620 P.2d 286 (1980).

Cited

Yount v. Boundary County, 118 Idaho 307, 796 P.2d 516 (1990).

Decisions Under Prior Law
Compliance With Law.

It will be presumed, in the absence of proof to the contrary, that law regarding compilation of jury list was complied with in the selection of the jury list. State v. Walters, 61 Idaho 341, 102 P.2d 284 (1940).

Duties of Commissioners Regarding List.

In the preparation of jury lists, the county commissioners should substantially comply with the statute in taking the names from the poll lists of the respective precincts, and the preparation of the lists should be by the board rather than by the individual members of the board. State v. Walters, 61 Idaho 341, 102 P.2d 284 (1940).

Jurisdiction to Quash Panel.

A defendant’s motion to quash the panel on the ground that the jury lists had not been selected and prepared as required by law was properly denied, notwithstanding the jury lists were made up by each individual commissioner preparing his own list and then having the names on the three lists placed in the jury box as the list, instead of being made by the board of county commissioners as such, where it could be inferred that the board, after preparing the lists, filed certified lists of persons selected to serve as jurors with the clerk of the district court, since such certified list was the official action of the board. State v. Walters, 61 Idaho 341, 102 P.2d 284 (1940). Jurisdiction to Quash Panel.

Where the board of commissioners made a jury list under the former section regarding compilation of jury list and no appeal was taken from their order, the district court was without jurisdiction to quash the panel and discharge the jury on an ex parte motion of the district attorney not made in a pending case or pursuant to the complaint of any litigant, on the ground of illegality in the selection of the list. Heitman v. Morgan, 10 Idaho 562, 79 P. 225 (1905).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.
ALR.

§ 2-207. Master and county jury lists — Manner of updating.

  1. Updated information from the lists used to compile the master and county jury lists, including any changes, deletions and additions, shall be made to the master and county jury lists from time to time as determined by the jury commission or the supreme court, but at a minimum not less frequently than December of each odd-numbered year.
  2. In the alternative, or in addition to the procedure set forth in subsection (1) of this section, in December of each odd-numbered year, or more frequently as determined by the jury commission or the supreme court, the master and county jury lists shall be emptied and refilled as prescribed in section 2-206, Idaho Code.
  3. Pursuant to the provisions of subsections (1) and (2) of this section, the supreme court shall determine the method and timing of updating the master jury list, and the jury commission shall determine the method and timing of updating any county jury list that is separately compiled and maintained by a county.
History.

1971, ch. 169, § 6, p. 799; am. 1974, ch. 26, § 7, p. 804; am. 2002, ch. 94, § 2, p. 256; am. 2005, ch. 190, § 4, p. 583; am. 2019, ch. 222, § 2, p. 682.

STATUTORY NOTES

Amendments.

The 2019 amendment, by ch. 222, rewrote the section to the extent that a detailed comparison is impracticable.

Effective Dates.

Section 7 of S.L. 2019, ch. 222 declared an emergency. Approved March 25, 2019.

CASE NOTES

Cited

State v. Pontier, 95 Idaho 707, 518 P.2d 969 (1974); State v. Silcox, 103 Idaho 483, 650 P.2d 625 (1982); Yount v. Boundary County, 118 Idaho 307, 796 P.2d 516 (1990).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

C.J.S.

§ 2-208. Names randomly drawn from county jury list — Qualification questionnaire forms for prospective jurors — Mailing and return — Order to appear — Criminal contempt — Penalty for misrepresentation.

  1. The court or any other state or county official having authority to conduct a trial or hearing with a jury within the county may direct the jury commission to draw and assign to that court or official the number of qualified jurors deemed necessary for one (1) or more jury panels or as required by law for a grand jury. Upon receipt of the direction and in a manner prescribed by the court, the jury commission shall publicly draw at random, by use of a manual, mechanical, or automated system, from the county jury list the number of prospective jurors specified. Neither the names drawn nor the list shall be disclosed to any person except upon specific order of the presiding judge.
  2. Each person on the prospective jury panel shall be served with a summons, issued by the clerk of the court or the jury commissioner. The summons shall be served either personally, or by regular mail or certified mail, addressed to the prospective juror at that person’s usual residence, business or post office address.
  3. The clerk or the jury commissioner shall mail a qualification questionnaire form, accompanied by instructions, addressed to the prospective jurors at their usual residence, business or post office address. The qualification questionnaire form may be sent together with the summons in a single mailing to a prospective juror. The qualification questionnaire form shall be in a form prescribed by the supreme court. The qualification questionnaire form must be completed and returned to the clerk or the jury commissioner within ten (10) days from the date of mailing. The qualification questionnaire form shall elicit the name, address of residence, and age of the prospective juror and whether the prospective juror: (a) is a citizen of the United States of America and a resident of the county; (b) is able to read, speak and understand the English language; (c) has any disability impairing his capacity to render satisfactory jury service; and (d) has lost the right to serve on a jury because of a felony criminal conviction as provided by section 3, article VI, of the constitution of the state of Idaho, and who has not been restored to the rights of citizenship pursuant to section 18-310, Idaho Code, or other applicable law. The qualification questionnaire form shall contain the prospective juror’s declaration that his responses are true to the best of his knowledge and his acknowledgment that a willful misrepresentation of a material fact may be punished as a misdemeanor. Notarization of the completed qualification questionnaire form shall not be required. If the prospective juror is unable to complete the form, another person may do so on his or her behalf and shall indicate that such person has done so and the reason therefor. If it appears there is an omission, ambiguity, or error in a returned form, the clerk or the jury commissioner shall again send the form with instructions to the prospective juror to make the necessary addition, clarification, or correction and to return the form to the jury commission within ten (10) days after its second mailing.
  4. Any prospective juror who fails to return a completed qualification questionnaire form as instructed shall be directed by the jury commission to appear forthwith before the clerk or the jury commissioner to complete the qualification questionnaire form. At the time of his appearance for jury service, or at the time of interview before the court, clerk, or the jury commissioner, any prospective juror may be required to complete another qualification questionnaire form in the presence of the court, clerk, or the jury commissioner, at which time the prospective juror may be questioned, but only with regard to his responses to questions contained on the form and grounds for his excuse or disqualification. Any information thus acquired by the court, clerk, or the jury commissioner shall be noted on the qualification questionnaire form.
  5. A prospective juror who fails to appear as directed by the commission, pursuant to subsection (4) of this section, shall be ordered by the court to appear and show cause for his failure to appear as directed. A prospective juror who fails to appear pursuant to the court’s order may be subject to contempt proceedings under chapter 6, title 7, Idaho Code, and applicable rules of the supreme court, and the prospective juror’s service may be postponed to a new prospective jury panel as set by the presiding judge.
  6. Any person who willfully misrepresents a material fact on a qualification questionnaire form for the purpose of avoiding or securing service as a juror is guilty of a misdemeanor.
  7. The contents of the juror qualification questionnaire form shall be confidential to the extent provided by rules of the Idaho supreme court.
  8. The clerk or the jury commissioner may provide an opportunity to a prospective juror to complete and return the qualification questionnaire form through electronic mail, facsimile transmission, or other reliable means of communication prior to mailing the qualification questionnaire form to the prospective juror. If the prospective juror completes and returns the qualification questionnaire form in such manner, the qualification questionnaire form need not be mailed to the prospective juror.
History.

1971, ch. 169, § 7, p. 799; am. 1974, ch. 26, § 8, p. 804; am. 2002, ch. 94, § 3, p. 256; am. 2003, ch. 116, § 1, p. 359; am. 2005, ch. 190, § 5, p. 583; am. 2013, ch. 207, § 1, p. 494; am. 2019, ch. 222, § 3, p. 682.

STATUTORY NOTES

Amendments.

The 2013 amendment, by ch. 207, in subsection (5), updated the reference in the first sentence and rewrote the last sentence, which formerly read: “If the prospective juror fails to appear pursuant to the court’s order or fails to show good cause for his failure to appear as directed by the jury commission, he is guilty of contempt and upon conviction may be fined not more than three hundred dollars ($300) or imprisoned not more than three (3) days, or both, and postponed to a new prospective jury panel as set by the presiding judge”.

The 2019 amendment, by ch. 222, substituted “county jury list” for “master jury list” in the section heading and near the end of the second sentence in subsection (1).

Effective Dates.
Section 7 of S.L. 2019, ch. 222 declared an emergency. Approved March 25, 2019. CASE NOTES
Compilation of List.

Where the defendant made no argument, nor did the record indicate, that the lack of participation by one member of the two-member jury commission in the preparation and compilation of the jury lists affected the random nature or objectivity of the selection process, the compilation of the jury lists by the one member unaided by the other member was valid since the defendant did not establish nor even argue that any prejudice resulted therefrom. State v. Silcox, 103 Idaho 483, 650 P.2d 625 (1982), overruled on other grounds, State v. Flint, 114 Idaho 806, 761 P.2d 1158 (1988).

Although the county made no follow-up contacts and persons who failed to return completed questionnaires were not placed on the quarterly jury list, in violation of this section, where the appellants made no showing that the commissioners’ failure to contact nonresponding potential jurors contributed to underrepresentation of Hispanics, an inference arose that an Hispanic person whose name appeared on the master jury list was as likely as the average person to return a completed juror qualification form. State v. Lopez, 107 Idaho 726, 692 P.2d 370 (Ct. App. 1984).

Computer Use.

Idaho’s Uniform Jury Service and Selection Act (this chapter) does not preclude jury commissioners from delegating such ministerial duties as may be performed by a computer service; the use of computers has been recognized as beneficial to the goal of fair and impartial jury selection. Absent a showing that use of the computer service in any way adversely affected the random nature or objectivity of the jury selection process, no purported error by the jury commissioners would afford a basis to disturb the judgments of conviction. State v. Lopez, 107 Idaho 726, 692 P.2d 370 (Ct. App. 1984).

Qualification Forms.

The statutory procedures for following up on returned jury qualification forms do not improperly exclude Hispanics from juries. State v. Paz, 118 Idaho 542, 798 P.2d 1 (1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1259, 111 S. Ct. 2911, 115 L. Ed. 2d 1074 (1991), overruled on other grounds, State v. Card, 121 Idaho 425, 825 P.2d 1081 (1991).

Cited

Yount v. Boundary County, 118 Idaho 307, 796 P.2d 516 (1990).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.
C.J.S.

50A C.J.S., Juries, § 284 et seq.

§ 2-209. Determination of qualification of prospective juror — Qualifications — Physician’s certificate of disability.

  1. The administrative district judge or administrative district judge’s designee, upon request of the clerk or the jury commissioner or a prospective juror or on its own initiative, shall determine on the basis of information provided on the qualification questionnaire form or interview with the prospective juror or other competent evidence whether:
    1. The prospective juror is not qualified to serve on a jury because he or she is unable to read, speak, and understand the English language; or
    2. The prospective juror is disqualified from service on a jury because of a disability which renders the prospective juror incapable of performing satisfactory jury service. A person claiming this disqualification shall be required to submit a physician’s certificate as to the disability, and the certifying physician is subject to inquiry by the court at its discretion.
  2. The clerk or the jury commissioner shall determine on the basis of information provided on the qualification questionnaire form or interview with the prospective juror or other competent evidence whether:
    1. The prospective juror is not qualified to serve on a jury because the person is not a citizen of the United States of America, eighteen (18) years of age, and a resident of the county; or
    2. The prospective juror is disqualified from serving on a jury because of a felony criminal conviction as provided by section 3, article VI, of the constitution of the state of Idaho, and who has not been restored to the rights of citizenship pursuant to section 18-310, Idaho Code, or other applicable law.
  3. A person who is disqualified from serving on a jury on the basis of any of the grounds set forth in subsections (1) and (2) of this section shall be excused from serving on a jury for a period of two (2) years following the disqualification. The administrative district judge, or a district judge or magistrate judge designated by the administrative district judge, may excuse a person disqualified under subsection (1)(b) of this section for a period of time greater than two (2) years, or may excuse such person permanently from serving on a jury. An order excusing such a person permanently or for a period of time greater than two (2) years shall be based upon a finding as to the nature and duration of the disability, based upon the information provided in the qualification questionnaire form, an interview with the prospective juror, or other competent evidence.
History.

1971, ch. 169, § 8, p. 799; am. 1972, ch. 8, § 1, p. 12; am. 1981, ch. 266, § 1, p. 565; am. 1996, ch. 189, § 1, p. 597; am. 2002, ch. 94, § 4, p. 256; am. 2005, ch. 190, § 6, p. 583.

STATUTORY NOTES

Effective Dates.

Section 2 of S.L. 1972, ch. 8 declared an emergency. Approved February 4, 1972.

CASE NOTES

Qualifications.

It would be patently unreasonable to require the state to utilize jurors who are not proficient in the English language, unable to understand testimony, directions of the court, or read exhibits and instructions; furthermore, it is not difficult to perceive that the state has a significant interest in the integrity of the jury system, and that that interest is manifestly and primarily advanced by limiting jurors to those who are capable of understanding the proceedings, and, as long as the qualification is equally administered as to all foreign language speakers, there is no constitutional infirmity in the requirement that jurors be competent in English. State v. Paz, 118 Idaho 542, 798 P.2d 1 (1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1259, 111 S. Ct. 2911, 115 L. Ed. 2d 1074 (1991), overruled on other grounds, State v. Card, 121 Idaho 425, 825 P.2d 1081 (1991).

Systematic Underrepresentation of Group.

Even if the application of this section results in systematic underrepresentation of Hispanics as jurors, the jury selection system may still be upheld if the state shows that a significant state interest is manifestly and primarily advanced by those aspects of the jury selection process that result in the disproportionate exclusion of a distinctive group. State v. Paz, 118 Idaho 542, 798 P.2d 1 (1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1259, 111 S. Ct. 2911, 115 L. Ed. 2d 1074 (1991), overruled on other grounds, State v. Card, 121 Idaho 425, 825 P.2d 1081 (1991).

Decisions Under Prior Law
Challenge to Panel.

Disqualification of any individual juror is not ground for challenge to entire panel. State v. Cosler, 39 Idaho 519, 228 P. 277 (1924).

Qualifications.

The state is entitled to use voter registration and driver’s license lists as a means of selecting jurors, and the state may establish minimum qualifications for jurors where the qualifications relate to the juror’s competence to understand and administer the law. Mills v. Glennon, 2 Idaho 105, 6 P. 116 (1885).

Qualifications as Electors.

Jurors must have all qualifications of electors. Territory v. Evans, 2 Idaho 651, 23 P. 232 (1890), overruled on other grounds, State v. Potter, 6 Idaho 584, 57 P. 431 (1899).

A juror should possess the qualifications of an elector, but it does not follow that he need be registered as such, as registration does not go to his qualification but is merely a precaution to prevent fraud in election. Territory v. Evans, 2 Idaho 651, 23 P. 232 (1890), overruled on other grounds, State v. Potter, 6 Idaho 584, 57 P. 431 (1899). Right to vote has no direct relation to jury duty; the two are not treated together in either the constitution or the statutes; one right is guaranteed by the constitution, the other is a duty. State v. Kelley, 39 Idaho 668, 229 P. 659 (1924).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

47 Am. Jur. 2d, Jury, § 142 et seq.

C.J.S.

50A C.J.S., Juries, § 284 et seq.

§ 2-210. Names placed in prospective jury panel — Summoning additional trial jurors.

  1. The jury commission shall maintain a prospective jury panel and shall place therein the names or identifying numbers of all prospective jurors drawn from the county jury list who are not disqualified under section 2-209, Idaho Code.
  2. If there is an unanticipated shortage of available trial jurors drawn from a prospective jury panel, the court may require the sheriff to summon a sufficient number of trial jurors selected at random by the clerk from the county jury list in a manner prescribed by the court. The jurors whose names are drawn from the county jury list shall be served with a summons and shall complete the qualification questionnaire form in the manner prescribed in section 2-208, Idaho Code.
History.

1971, ch. 169, § 9, p. 799; am. 1978, ch. 79, § 1, p. 154; am. 1990, ch. 213, § 4, p. 480; am. 2001, ch. 120, § 1, p. 413; am. 2002, ch. 94, § 5, p. 256; am. 2005, ch. 190, § 7, p. 583; am. 2019, ch. 222, § 4, p. 682.

STATUTORY NOTES

Amendments.

The 2019 amendment, by ch. 222, deleted “Names drawn to be public — Exception” from the end of the section heading; and substituted “county jury list” for “master jury list” near the end of subsection (1) and twice in subsection (2).

Effective Dates.

Section 111 of S.L. 1990, ch. 213 as amended by § 16 of S.L. 1991, ch. 329 provided that §§ 3 through 45 and 48 through 110 of the act should take effect July 1, 1993 and that §§ 1, 2, 46 and 47 should take effect July 1, 1990.

Section 7 of S.L. 2019, ch. 222 declared an emergency. Approved March 25, 2019.

CASE NOTES

Cited

State v. Silcox, 103 Idaho 483, 650 P.2d 625 (1982); Yount v. Boundary County, 118 Idaho 307, 796 P.2d 516 (1990).

Decisions Under Prior Law
Authority of Court.

The trial court observed the law and did not commit any error in directing the special panel to be summoned on authority of the court upon finding that additional jurors were necessary to complete the jury ordering a special venire returnable later that same day. State v. Davidson, 78 Idaho 553, 309 P.2d 211 (1957).

Irregularity in Summoning Jury.

Mere irregularity in procedure with regard to summoning grand jury by which indictment was found was not ground for quashing indictment, unless prejudice to substantial rights of defendant was shown. State v. Roberts, 33 Idaho 30, 188 P. 895 (1920); Rich v. Varian, 36 Idaho 355, 210 P. 1011 (1922).

Professional Jurors.

The conclusion of bias resting on the assertion that sheriff called “professional” jurors which was attempted to be grounded on an affidavit alleging an investigation made some six months previously having to do with the manner in which the sheriff selected special veniremen cannot be treated as proof that any such situation existed at the time of appellant’s trial setting. State v. Davidson, 78 Idaho 553, 309 P.2d 211 (1957).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

§ 2-211. No exemptions.

No exemptions for any qualified prospective juror may be granted.

History.

1971, ch. 169, § 10, p. 799; am. 2005, ch. 190, § 8, p. 583.

§ 2-212. Excusing or postponing jury service — Inquiry by court — Grounds for excusing or postponing.

  1. The court, or a member of the jury commission designated by the court, upon request of a prospective juror or on its own initiative, shall determine on the basis of information provided on the qualification questionnaire form or interview with the prospective juror or other competent evidence whether the prospective juror should be excused from jury service or have their jury service postponed. The clerk or the jury commissioner shall keep a record of this determination.
  2. A person who is seventy (70) years of age or older shall be permanently excused if the person indicates on the qualification questionnaire form that he or she wishes to be excused. A person who requests to be excused on this basis shall be reinstated to the county jury list by submitting a written request asking to be reinstated for jury service.
  3. A person who is not disqualified for jury service under section 2-209, Idaho Code, may have jury service postponed by the court or the jury commissioner only upon a showing of undue hardship, extreme inconvenience, or public necessity, or upon a showing that the juror is a mother breastfeeding her child.
    1. Any person requesting a postponement shall provide a written statement setting forth the reason for the request and the anticipated date that the reason will no longer exist.
    2. The court or the jury commissioner may require a person requesting a postponement for any medical reason to provide a statement from a medical provider supporting the request.
    3. The postponement, if granted, shall be for a period of time as the court or the jury commissioner deems necessary, at the conclusion of which the person shall reappear for jury service in accordance with the direction of the court or the jury commissioner.
History.

1971, ch. 169, § 11, p. 799; am. 1986, ch. 295, § 1, p. 742; am. 2002, ch. 94, § 6, p. 256; am. 2005, ch. 190, § 9, p. 583; am. 2019, ch. 222, § 5, p. 682.

STATUTORY NOTES

Amendments.

The 2019 amendment, by ch. 222, substituted “county jury list” for “master jury list” near the middle of the last sentence in subsection (2).

Effective Dates.

Section 7 of S.L. 2019, ch. 222 declared an emergency. Approved March 25, 2019.

CASE NOTES

Decisions Under Prior Law
Grand Jury.

Where a defendant was indicted for false pretense by a grand jury of 16, he was not prejudiced by the act of the judge in dismissing three members of a grand jury, one because of personal illness, and two because of the necessity of engaging in private employment, and appointing three additional individuals to the grand jury. State v. Dunn, 60 Idaho 568, 94 P.2d 779 (1939).

Excusing some of the members of the grand jury and substituting others leaving a jury of 16 does not show prejudice as an accused is not entitled to a particular grand juror. State v. Dunn, 60 Idaho 568, 94 P.2d 779 (1939).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.
C.J.S.

§ 2-213. Stay of proceedings or quashing indictment for irregularity in selecting jury — Evidence in support of motion — Remedies exclusive — Contents of records not to be disclosed.

  1. Within seven (7) days after the moving party discovered or by the exercise of diligence could have discovered the grounds therefor, and in any event before the trial jury is sworn to try the case, a party may move to stay the proceedings, and in a criminal case to quash the indictment, or for other appropriate relief, on the ground of substantial failure to comply with this chapter in selecting the grand or trial jury.
  2. Upon motion filed under subsection (1) of this section containing a sworn statement of facts which, if true, would constitute a substantial failure to comply with this chapter, the moving party is entitled to present in support of the motion the testimony of the jury commissioner or the clerk, any relevant records and papers not public or otherwise available used by the jury commissioner or the clerk, and any other relevant evidence. If the court determines that in selecting either a grand jury or a trial jury there has been a substantial failure to comply with this chapter, the court shall stay the proceedings pending the selection of the jury in conformity with this chapter, quash an indictment, or grant other appropriate relief.
  3. The procedures prescribed by this section are the exclusive means by which a person accused of a crime, the state, or a party in a civil case may challenge a jury on the ground that the jury was not selected in conformity with this chapter.
  4. The contents of any records or papers used by the jury commissioner or the clerk in connection with the selection process and not made public under section 2-206(5), Idaho Code, shall not be disclosed, except in connection with the preparation or presentation of a motion under subsection (1) of this section. The parties in a case may inspect, reproduce, and copy the records or papers at all reasonable times during the preparation and pendency of a motion under subsection (1) of this section.
History.

1971, ch. 169, § 12, p. 799; am. 2001, ch. 120, § 2, p. 413; am. 2005, ch. 190, § 10, p. 583; am. 2019, ch. 222, § 6, p. 682.

STATUTORY NOTES

Amendments.

The 2019 amendment, by ch. 222, substituted “section 2-206(5), Idaho Code” for “section 2-206(4), Idaho Code” near the middle of the first sentence in subsection (4).

Effective Dates.

Section 7 of S.L. 2019, ch. 222 declared an emergency. Approved March 25, 2019.

CASE NOTES

Applicability.

Employers’ claim against the manager of the state insurance fund (SIF) for failure to distribute a dividend to policyholders under§ 72-915 was grounded in contract, not statute, and, therefore, the five-year statute of limitation in§ 5-216 applied; it was the contract, and its breach by the SIF, that allowed the employers and their class to bring the action. Farber v. Idaho State Ins. Fund, 152 Idaho 495, 272 P.3d 467 (2012).

Burden of Proof.

A party who contends purposeful discrimination occurred in the selection of a jury panel bears the burden of proving that contention. State v. Ruybal, 102 Idaho 885, 643 P.2d 835 (Ct. App. 1982).

Challenge.

This section requires that a motion challenging the composition of a jury be made within seven days after the discovery of grounds therefor and, in any event, before the jury is sworn to try the case; accordingly, where the defendant waited until the appeal of his conviction to make his first objection to the selection of the jury, the objection was untimely since the defendant did not use reasonable diligence in asserting his rights in the trial court. State v. Ruybal, 102 Idaho 885, 643 P.2d 835 (Ct. App. 1982).

While a constitutional challenge to the jury selection process must focus upon systematic underrepresentation of an identifiable group, like Hispanics, no such requirement applies to a statutory challenge; a challenge under the Uniform Jury Selection and Service Act (§ 2-201 et seq.) may be based broadly upon a showing that the statutory violation has substantially affected the random nature and objectivity of the process. State v. Lopez, 107 Idaho 726, 692 P.2d 370 (Ct. App. 1984).

Plaintiff did not properly challenge the makeup of a jury panel by simply moving to stay the proceedings on the grounds that there was a failure to comply with the statutory requirements in selecting the panel. McCandless v. Pease, — Idaho —, 465 P.3d 1104 (2020).

Constitutionality.

Since this section provides civil litigants timely notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard on issues relating to jury selection, it did not effect a denial of due process to require a litigant to present his challenge to the jury selection process within the provisions of this section and trial court properly denied litigant his motion for a new trial. Higuera v. Hiestand, 128 Idaho 700, 918 P.2d 284 (1996).

Sworn Statement of Facts.
Cited

The Uniform Jury Selection and Service Act’s (§ 2-201 et seq.) remedial procedures afford the sole means for enforcing the act’s substantive provisions; thus, where the appellants’ challenge to the jury selection process was made by two unverified motions, one alleging an infringement of constitutional rights and the other alleging the improper delegation of functions to a computer service, and neither motion contained nor was accompanied by any “sworn statement of facts,” as required by subsection (2) of this section, such omission was fatal to a statutory challenge to the jury. State v. Lopez, 107 Idaho 726, 692 P.2d 370 (Ct. App. 1984). Cited State v. Pontier, 95 Idaho 707, 518 P.2d 969 (1974).

§ 2-214. Retention period for papers and records.

All records and papers compiled and maintained by the jury commissioner or the clerk in connection with selection and service of jurors shall be preserved by the clerk for a minimum period of four (4) years and for any longer period ordered by the court.

History.

1971, ch. 169, § 13, p. 799; am. 1978, ch. 81, § 1, p. 155; am. 2005, ch. 190, § 11, p. 583.

§ 2-215. Mileage and per diem of jurors.

A juror shall be paid mileage for his travel expenses from his residence to the place of holding court and return at the same rate per mile as established by resolution of the county commissioners for county employees in the county where the juror resides and shall be compensated at the following rate, to be paid from the county treasury:

  1. Five dollars ($5.00), or a rate of more than five dollars ($5.00) up to twenty-five dollars ($25.00) as determined by the county commissioners of the county where the juror resides, for each one-half (1/2) day, or portion thereof, unless the juror travels more than thirty (30) miles from his residence, in which event he shall receive ten dollars ($10.00), or a rate of more than ten dollars ($10.00) up to fifty dollars ($50.00) as determined by the county commissioners of the county where the juror resides, for each one-half (1/2) day or portion thereof;
  2. Ten dollars ($10.00), or a rate of more than ten dollars ($10.00) up to fifty dollars ($50.00) as determined by the county commissioners in the county where the juror resides, for each day’s required attendance at court of more than one-half (1/2) day;
  3. Fifty dollars ($50.00) for each day’s required attendance at court that exceeds five (5) days for one (1) trial.
History.

1971, ch. 169, § 14, p. 799; am. 1982, ch. 213, § 1, p. 587; am. 2013, ch. 66, § 1, p. 161; am. 2018, ch. 257, § 1, p. 608.

STATUTORY NOTES

Amendments.

The 2013 amendment, by ch. 66, in subsection (1) added “or a rate of more than five dollars ($5.00) up to twenty-five dollars ($25.00) as determined by the county commissioners of the county where the juror resides” and “or a rate of more than ten dollars ($10.00) up to fifty dollars ($50.00) as determined by the county commissioners of the county where the juror resides”; and added “or a rate of more than ten dollars ($10.00) up to fifty dollars ($50.00) as determined by the county commissioners in the county where the juror resides” in subsection (2).

The 2018 amendment, by ch. 257, added subsection (3).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.
C.J.S.

§ 2-216. Limitation on required jury service.

In any two (2) year period, or a longer period not to exceed five (5) years, as determined by the administrative judge of a judicial district, a person shall not be required:

  1. To serve or attend court for prospective service as a trial juror more than ten (10) court days, except if necessary to complete service in a particular case;
  2. To be available for jury service for a period to exceed six (6) months; provided however, that the administrative district judge for the judicial district in which a county is located may by order specify a shorter term of required availability for jury service;
  3. To serve on more than one (1) grand jury; or
  4. To serve as both a grand and trial juror.

Appearance for jury service, whether or not the roll is called, shall be credited toward required jury service. Appearance for jury service may include telephone standby as permitted by the administrative judge of the district.

History.

1971, ch. 169, § 15, p. 799; am. 1977, ch. 54, § 1, p. 105; am. 1978, ch. 83, § 1, p. 157; am. 2001, ch. 120, § 3, p. 413; am. 2002, ch. 94, § 7, p. 256.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

§ 2-217. Penalty for evasion of jury service. [Repealed.]

Repealed by S.L. 2019, ch. 184, § 1, effective July 1, 2019. For present comparable provisions, see§ 7-610.

History.

1971, ch. 169, § 16, p. 799; am. 2005, ch. 190, § 12, p. 583.

§ 2-218. Employer prohibited from penalizing employee for jury service — Penalty — Action by discharged employee for lost wages.

  1. An employer shall not deprive an employee of his employment, or threaten or otherwise coerce him with respect thereto, because the employee receives a summons, responds thereto, serves as a juror, or attends court for prospective jury service.
  2. Any employer who violates subsection (1) of this section is guilty of criminal contempt and upon conviction may be fined not more than three hundred dollars ($300).
  3. If an employer discharges an employee in violation of subsection (1) of this section the employee within sixty (60) days may bring a civil action for recovery of treble the amount of wages lost as a result of the violation and for an order requiring the reinstatement of the employee. If he prevails, the employee shall be allowed a reasonable attorney’s fee fixed by the court.
History.

1971, ch. 169, § 17, p. 799; am. 1987, ch. 65, § 1, p. 116.

§ 2-219. Delegation of authority by administrative judges.

Administrative judges are authorized to delegate their duties and responsibilities under this act to district judges or duly appointed magistrates within their respective district [districts].

History.

1971, ch. 169, § 18, p. 799; am. 1974, ch. 26, § 9, p. 804.

STATUTORY NOTES

Compiler’s Notes.

For words “this act”, see Compiler’s Notes,§ 2-201.

The bracketed word “districts” was inserted by the compiler.

§ 2-220. Power of supreme court to make rules concerning juries.

The supreme court may make and amend rules, not inconsistent with this act, regulating the selection and service of jurors and for the administration and payment of reimbursement to the counties of forty dollars ($40.00) per day for lengthy jury trials as provided in section 2-222, Idaho Code.

History.

1971, ch. 169, § 19, p. 799; am. 2018, ch. 257, § 2, p. 608.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Court rules regarding juries, Idaho R. Civ. P. 47.

Amendments.

The 2018 amendment, by ch. 257, added “and for the administration and payment of reimbursement to the counties of forty dollars ($40.00) per day for lengthy jury trials as provided in section 2-222, Idaho Code” at the end.

Compiler’s Notes.

The words “this act” refer to S.L. 1971, Chapter 169, which is compiled as§§ 2-201 to 2-221.

Section 20 of S.L. 1971, ch. 169, reads: “If any provision of this act or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of the act which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this act are severable.”

§ 2-221. Construction of act.

This act shall be so applied and construed as to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law with respect to the subject of this act among those states which enact it.

History.

1971, ch. 169, § 22, p. 799.

STATUTORY NOTES

Compiler’s Notes.

For words “this act”, see Compiler’s Notes,§ 2-201.

Effective Dates.

Section 24 of S.L. 1971, ch. 169 declared an emergency. Approved March 20, 1971.

§ 2-222. Lengthy trial juror compensation.

  1. The supreme court shall reimburse the counties for moneys the county paid during the previous fiscal year for lengthy trial juror compensation under section 2-215(3), Idaho Code, from and to the extent that moneys are appropriated for this purpose by the legislature. On and after September 30, 2018, and each county fiscal year thereafter, any board of county commissioners may file an annual application with the administrative director of the courts requesting reimbursement of lengthy jury trial juror compensation in the amount set forth in subsection (2) of this section. The supreme court shall prescribe by rule the time within which an application must be filed, the form for the application and the information that must accompany each application.
  2. Each county whose application is approved by the administrative director of the courts shall receive moneys for the reimbursement of lengthy trial juror compensation paid by the county during the previous fiscal year. The amount of the reimbursement shall be forty dollars ($40.00) per juror and alternate juror for each day of jury service beyond the fifth day of required attendance at court relating to a trial, if there are sufficient moneys to fully reimburse every county whose application is approved. If there are insufficient moneys to fully reimburse every county whose application is approved, then each county shall receive only a percentage of its reimbursement request. The percentage shall be established by dividing the total amount of available moneys by the sum of all reimbursements requested by all counties.
History.

I.C.,§ 2-222, as added by 2018, ch. 257, § 3, p. 608.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Administrative director of the courts,§ 1-611.

Chapter 3 JURY LIST

Section.

§ 2-301 — 2-305. Jury lists. [Repealed.]

STATUTORY NOTES

Compiler’s Notes.

These sections, which comprised C.C.P. 1881, §§ 82, 84, 85, 87, 88; R.S., R.C., & C.L.,§§ 3947-3951; am. 1915, ch. 60; C.S.,§§ 6524-6528; I.C.A.,§§ 2-301 — 2-305; am. 1943, ch. 158, § 5, p. 320; am. 1951, ch. 191, §§ 1, 2, p. 406, were repealed by S.L. 1971, ch. 169, § 23. For present law, see§ 2-201 et seq.

Chapter 4 DRAWING AND SUMMONING JURORS

Section.

§ 2-401 — 2-417. Drawing and summoning jurors. [Repealed.]

STATUTORY NOTES

Compiler’s Notes.

These sections, which comprised C.C.P. 1881,§§ 89-104; R.S.§§ 3952-3967; am. 1899, p. 335, § 1; reen. R.C., & C.L.,§§ 3942-3967; am. 1913, ch. 30, p. 128; C.S.,§§ 6529-6544; I.C.A.,§§ 2-401 — 2-416; am. 1943, ch. 158, § 6, p. 320; am. 1963, ch. 84, § 2, p. 277; am. 1969, ch. 109, § 103; I.C.,§ 2-417, as added by 1969, ch. 235, § 1, p. 748, were repealed by S.L. 1971, ch. 169, § 23. For present law, see§ 2-201 et seq.

Chapter 5 IMPANELING JURIES

Section.

§ 2-501. Grand jury — Impaneling on order of judge.

Grand juries shall not hereafter be drawn, summoned or required to attend at the sittings of any court within the state, as provided by law, unless the district judge as assigned by the administrative judge shall so order in writing. The order shall be filed with the clerk of the court and a copy of the order shall be delivered to the jury commission and prosecuting attorney.

History.

R.S., § 3968; reen. 1899, p. 125, § 7; reen. R.C. & C.L., § 3968; C.S., § 6545; I.C.A.,§ 2-501; am. 2002, ch. 94, § 8, p. 256.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Definition of grand jury,§ 2-103.

Grand jury may be summoned upon order of district court,Idaho Const., Art. I, § 8.

Procedure regarding grand jury, Idaho R. Crim. P. 6.

Uniform Jury Selection and Service Act,§ 2-201 et seq.

CASE NOTES

Constitutionality.

This section does not offendIdaho Const., Art. I, § 8, which provides for prosecution by indictment or information. State v. Barber, 13 Idaho 65, 88 P. 418 (1907).

Discretion of Court.

The decision not to call a grand jury falls within the judge’s discretionary authority; such a decision will not be disturbed unless an abuse of discretion has occurred. Parsons v. Idaho State Tax Comm’n, 110 Idaho 572, 716 P.2d 1344 (Ct. App. 1986).

Grand Jury Denied.
Number of Jurors.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant’s request for a grand jury where the court found the defendant’s claims against the state tax commission to be without merit, and the defendant did not make any showing that he was barred from the alternative remedy of presenting his evidence to the prosecutor or to the state attorney general’s office. Parsons v. Idaho State Tax Comm’n, 110 Idaho 572, 716 P.2d 1344 (Ct. App. 1986). Number of Jurors.

Section 2-103 and this section require 16 men to constitute grand jury. Less number will not constitute legal body. State v. Roberts, 33 Idaho 30, 188 P. 895 (1920).

It was the intention of the legislature (§ 2-502) that business of grand jury might be carried on without the presence of entire 16 members. Rich v. Varian, 36 Idaho 355, 210 P. 1011 (1922).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.
C.J.S.

§ 2-502. Grand jury — How constituted — Quorum.

Sixteen (16) persons shall constitute a grand jury, twelve (12) of whom shall constitute a quorum, and when of the jurors summoned, no more nor less than sixteen (16) attend they shall constitute the grand jury. If more than sixteen (16) attend the clerk shall call over the list summoned, and the sixteen (16) first answering shall constitute the grand jury. If less than sixteen (16) attend, the panel may be filled to sixteen (16).

History.

C.C.P. 1881, § 106; R.S., R.C., & C.L., § 3969; C.S., § 6546; I.C.A.,§ 2-502; am. 2009, ch. 11, § 1, p. 14.

STATUTORY NOTES

Amendments.

The 2009 amendment, by ch. 11, deleted “as provided in section 2-410” from the end.

CASE NOTES

Application of Section.

When more than 12 jurors were present when the indictment was found, there was a quorum present under the language of this section. State v. Bullis, 93 Idaho 749, 472 P.2d 315 (1970).

Substitution of Jurors.

Where a defendant was indicted for false pretenses by a grand jury of 16, he was not prejudiced by the act of the judge in dismissing three members of a grand jury, one because of illness, and two because of necessity of engaging in private employment, and appointing three additional individuals to the grand jury. State v. Dunn, 60 Idaho 568, 94 P.2d 779 (1939).

Excusing some of the members of the grand jury and substituting others leaving a jury of 16 does not show prejudice; an accused is not entitled to a particular grand juror. State v. Dunn, 60 Idaho 568, 94 P.2d 779 (1939).

Cited

State v. Roberts, 33 Idaho 30, 188 P. 895 (1920); Rich v. Varian, 36 Idaho 355, 210 P. 1011 (1922).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

§ 2-503. Grand jury — How impaneled.

Thereafter such proceedings shall be had in impaneling the grand jury as are prescribed by the criminal practice.

History.

C.C.P. 1881, § 107; R.S., R.C., & C.L., § 3970; C.S., § 6547; I.C.A.,§ 2-503.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Formation of grand jury,§ 19-1001 et seq.

Powers and duties of grand jury,§ 19-1101 et seq.

Rules of court regarding grand jury, Idaho R. Crim. P. 6.

§ 2-504, 2-505. Trial jurors — Procedure at time order made returnable — Manner of impaneling jury. [Repealed.]

STATUTORY NOTES

Compiler’s Notes.

These sections, which comprised C.C.P. 1881, §§ 108, 109; R.S., R.C., & C.L., §§ 3971, 3972; C.S., §§ 6548, 6549; I.C.A.,§§ 2-504, 2-505, were repealed by S.L. 1975, ch. 242, § 1. For present rule, see Idaho Civil Procedure Rule 47.

§ 2-506. Impaneling jury in probate or justice’s court. [Repealed.]

STATUTORY NOTES

Compiler’s Notes.

This section, which comprised R.S., R.C., & C.L., § 3973; C.S., § 6550; I.C.A.,§ 2-506, was repealed by S.L. 1969, ch. 111, § 14.

§ 2-507. Impaneling juries — Criminal cases

Civil cases. [Repealed.]

STATUTORY NOTES

Compiler’s Notes.

This section, which comprised C.C.P. 1881, § 111; R.S., R.C., & C.L., § 3974; C.S., § 6551; I.C.A.,§ 2-507, was repealed by S.L. 1969, ch. 111, § 15.

§ 2-508. Impaneling of juries of inquest.

The mode and manner of impaneling juries of inquest are provided for in the provisions of the different statutes relating to such inquests.

History.

C.C.P. 1881, § 112; R.S., R.C., & C.L., § 3975; C.S., § 6552; I.C.A.,§ 2-508.

STATUTORY NOTES

Cross References.

Juries of inquest,§ 19-4301.

Chapter 6 FEES AND MILEAGE OF JURORS

Section.

§ 2-601 — 2-603. Fees and mileage of jurors. [Repealed.]

STATUTORY NOTES

Compiler’s Notes.

Sections 2-601 and 2-603, which comprised R.S., §§ 6136, 6138; am. 1893, p. 65, § 1; am. 1899, p. 180, § 1; R.C., §§ 6136, 6138; C.L., §§ 3976, 3978; C.S., §§ 6553, 6555; am. 1927, ch. 62, § 1, p. 78; I.C.A.,§§ 2-601, 2-603; am. 1933, ch. 17, § 1, p. 23; am. 1953, ch. 88, § 1, p. 118; am. 1957, ch. 144, § 1, p. 244; am. 1969, ch. 147, § 1, p. 472, were repealed by S.L. 1971, ch. 169, § 23.

Section 2-602, which comprised R.S., § 6137; R.C., § 6137; C.L., § 3977; C.S., § 6554; I.C.A.,§ 2-602; am. 1953, ch. 88, § 2, p. 118; am. 1957, ch. 144, § 2, p. 244; am. 1969, ch. 147, § 2, p. 472, was repealed by S.L. 1969, ch. 111, § 21.