Opinion ID: 1093338
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Bills 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16

Text: These bills present the question: May persons who have attained the age of eighteen, but who are not yet 21 years old serve on a petit jury? The trial judge was of the opinion they could not and ruled they were not qualified. At the time in question, March 1972, when this jury was selected, Article 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provided in part that In order to qualify to serve as a juror, a person must:. . . be at least twenty-one years of age . . . . This qualification was, at the time, one of long standing in the law of this State. However, the issue presented by these bills arises because subsequent legislation, in effect at the time these bills were perfected, amended the age qualification to eighteen. (Act 695 of 1972), and also amended Article 37 of the Civil Code by Act 98 of 1972 to provide: Persons of the age of eighteen years shall be considered of full age and until they attain that age, shall be minors. A person who is eighteen years of age or older shall be regarded as being fully emancipated, shall be considered adults and shall have the same rights, duties, responsibilities and capacities as persons who are twenty-one years of age or older. Although the trial judge has not assigned reasons for his ruling, we agree that neither Act 695 of 1972 nor Act 98 of 1972, effective in July 1972, had the effect amending the age qualification for jury service retroactively. By clear constitutional command No ex-post facto law. . . shall be passed . . . . La.Const. art. IV, ¶ 15.