Opinion ID: 2615180
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: in attendance at the court issue

Text: The defendant contends that the grand jurors were not selected from the whole number of jurors in attendance at the court. Article VII (Amended), Section 5(2). [20] The defendant suggests this constitutional provision means every prospective grand juror, be it the initial panel of 250, the reduced panel of 70 to 95, or even the 40 jurors, required by statute, ORS 10.220(1), [21] must be physically in the confines of the room in which the prospective grand jurors are selected. Defendant offers no explanation for the possible purpose could be served by such a procedure and offers no authority in support of his position. In State v. McReynolds, 212 Or. 325, 328, 319 P.2d 904 (1957), we held:    Causal reference to Oregon Constitution, amended Article VII, § 5, will disclose that there is no longer any constitutional requirement that grand jurors be chosen from the `whole number in attendance at the court' if provision is otherwise made by law, as authorized in that section. We find no statute which has taken advantage of the alternative procedure authorized in that section and therefore we conclude that the grand jury which the court found to have been duly impaneled during the May 1956 term was chosen under the provisions of ORS 132.020. That section prescribes the method by which grand jurors shall be selected and may be accepted by the court from the jurors in attendance upon the court at the time of the selection.    Until the time that the circuit court judge actually selected the members of the grand jury they were merely prospective grand jurors and their physical attendance at the court when their names were selected was unnecessary, not required by the constitution, and not required to avoid prejudice to the defendant. We think a reasonable interpretation of in attendance at the court in this context means summoned and under court supervision, but not necessarily physically present. [22] Consequently, we find no violation of the defendant's constitutional rights in this regard.