Case ID: ohio-cc-ns_14/html/0329-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

EXEMPTION FROM JURY SERVICE.
    Circuit Court of Hamilton County.
    In re James J. Heekin; Habeas Corpus.
    Decided, September 23, 1911.
    
      Constitutional Law — Validity of Statute Exempting from Jury Service Contributing Members of the State Militia.
    
    It is within the province of the Legislature to exempt from jury service such classes of persons as it deems best, and Section 5211 exempting contributing members of the Ohio Militia from such service is a valid enactment.
    
      
      Walter W. Schwaab, for the petitioner.
    
      Stanley W. Merrell, for the state.
    Smith, P. J.; Swing, J., and Jones, J., concur.
   In the above case the court is of the opinion that the judgment of the Court, of Insolvency of Hamilton County, discharging the relator, James J. Heekin, from the custody of the sheriff of county for alleged contempt of court is correct.

It appears that said Heekin is a contributing member of the Ohio National Guard and when summoned as a juror in the common pleas court he declined to serve as such by • virtue of the provisions of Sections 3039 and 3055, Revised Statutes (General Code Nos. 5210 and 5211).

It seems to us that it is within the province of the Legislature to exempt from service upon juries such classes of persons as it may deem best, and indeed this seems to be the great weight of authority.

Under Section 11444 of the General Code, public officers, clergymen, priests, physicians, attorneys at law, members of the police force, firemen employed by a municipal authority, acting volunteer members of companies to extinguish fires^ organized in and under the control of a municipality, and all persons serving as active members thereof for five consecutive years and every person over 70 years old are exempt from jury service.

We have never had it seriously contended that individuals in any of the above classes could be compelled to serve as jurors, if they desired to avail themselves of their exemption, and we see no good reason why the Legislature could not make an additional class exempt so long as the right of trial by jury is maintained. Hall v. Burlingame, 88 Mich., 438; Rawlins v. State, 201 U. S., 638.

As there is no error in the record the judgment of the court below is affirmed.