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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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).

Am. Jur. 2d.

C.J.S.

Cross References.

Alternate jurors,§ 19-1904.

Cross References.

Coroners’ inquest,§ 19-4301 et seq.

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C.C.P. 1881, § 79; R.S., R.C., & C.L., § 3941; C.S., § 6518; I.C.A.,§ 2-201; am. 1943, ch. 158, § 3, p. 320, was repealed by S.L. 1971, ch. 169, § 23.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

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).

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.

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).

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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).

Am. Jur. 2d.

C.J.S.

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.

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).

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).

Am. Jur. 2d.

ALR.

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.

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.

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).

Am. Jur. 2d.

C.J.S.

50A C.J.S., Juries, § 284 et seq.

Effective Dates.

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

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).

Am. Jur. 2d.

47 Am. Jur. 2d, Jury, § 142 et seq.

C.J.S.

50A C.J.S., Juries, § 284 et seq.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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).

Am. Jur. 2d.

C.J.S.

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.

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).

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).

Am. Jur. 2d.

C.J.S.

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.

Compiler’s Notes.

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

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

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.”

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.

Cross References.

Administrative director of the courts,§ 1-611.

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.

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.

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.

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).

Am. Jur. 2d.

C.J.S.

Amendments.

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

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Cross References.

Juries of inquest,§ 19-4301.

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.