Opinion ID: 1935332
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: At the time of the events in question, the two challenged statutes were in part as follows:

Text: § 607.2 Exemption. The following persons are exempt from liability to act as jurors: 1. Persons holding office under the laws of the United States or of this state. 2. Practicing attorneys, physicians, licensed embalmers, registered nurses, chiropractors, osteopaths, veterinarians, registered pharmacists, dentists, and clergymen, including Christian Science practitioners and readers. 3. Acting professors or teachers of any college, school, or other institution of learning. 4. Persons disabled by bodily infirmity. 5. Persons over sixty-five years of age. 6. Active members of any fire company. 7. Persons conscientiously opposed to acting as a juror because of religious faith. Section 609.2 Non Eligible Names: The appointive commission, in the preparation of said [jury] lists, shall not place thereon the name of any person:       9. Who has been exempted by law from jury service. Defendant contends he was denied trial by an impartial jury because § 607.2, as implemented by § 609.2, removes from potential jury service a sizeable portion of the population of Johnson County. This, he argues, made it impossible to pick a jury from a cross section of the population which would be representative of the community as a whole. We recently overruled a somewhat similar contention in State v. Brewer, 247 N.W.2d 205, 209-10 (Iowa 1976), where we held § 607.2 valid against attack on the statutory scheme for selecting juries as being unconstitutional on its face. Defendant's claim here is different. He does not argue the per se unconstitutionality of the statute but insists it is invalid as applied to him under the particular facts of this case. He zeroes in particularly, but not exclusively, on the statutory exclusion of all teachers and professors, pointing out this group is much more numerous in Johnson County than elsewhere because it is the seat of the University of Iowa. In an apparent effort to escape the impact of Brewer, he urges on us the rationale of Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 537, 95 S.Ct. 692, 701, 42 L.Ed.2d 690, 702 (1975), where the court said: What is a fair cross section at one time or place is not necessarily a fair cross section at another time or a different place. In Brewer, we reviewed the principles applicable to defendant's right to an impartial jury. There we stated again the rule that petit juries must be drawn from a representative cross section of the community to assure a defendant his fundamental right to a fair and impartial jury. However, this does not deny the state the right to exempt certain classes from jury service on reasonable grounds as long as the remaining eligible group is representative of the community. State v. Brewer, 247 N.W.2d at 209-10; State v. Williams, 243 N.W.2d 658, 662 (Iowa 1976). Defendant relies heavily on Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 95 S.Ct. 692, 42 L.Ed.2d 690 (1975) and Carter v. Jury Commission of Greene County, 396 U.S. 320, 332, 90 S.Ct. 518, 525, 24 L.Ed.2d 549, 557-58 (1970). These cases, too, lay down the above principles, placing particular stress on exclusions based on race and sex, matters not present in the case under consideration. The authority of states to determine the qualifications of jurors is of long standing. See Rawlins v. Georgia, 201 U.S. 638, 26 S.Ct. 560, 50 L.Ed. 899, 900 (1906). The principles announced there were cited with approval as recently as Taylor, where the court said: The states are free to grant exemptions from jury service to individuals in case of special hardship or incapacity and to those engaged in particular occupations the uninterrupted performance of which is critical to the community's welfare. Rawlins v. Georgia, 201 U.S. 638, 26 S.Ct. 560, 50 L.Ed. 899 (1906). 419 U.S. at 534, 95 S.Ct. at 700, 42 L.Ed.2d at 700. Defendant's argument is that our statutory exclusions cannot pass that test as applied to him. However, he has no solid ground for this complaint because the trial court found (and defendant admitted) that the persons exempt under the statutes were not excluded from the lists drawn by the commission. We quote from defendant's motion to quash the jury panel: The present jury commission    has deliberately and knowingly ignored the provisions of §§ 607.2 and 609.2 by placing on said panel of petit jurors individuals `exempted by law from jury service.' Said action by the jury commission clearly violates §§ 607.2 and 609.2, The Code. Defendant thus finds himself in an anomalous position. He argues, on the one hand, the presence of certain classes for jury service was indispensable to preserve his constitutional rights and he insists, on the other, that it was error to include these very persons on the list of potential jurors. This raises an additional question: was the jury panel invalid because ineligible persons were included on the list of potential jurors? We think not. We have held statutes regulating the selection of jurors to be directory only. It is sufficient if they are substantially complied with. We said this as long ago as State v. Carney, 20 Iowa 82, 84-85 (1866) and as recently as State v. Dohrn, 259 N.W.2d 801, 804 (Iowa 1977). In the latter case this appears: Our statutes establishing grand jury selection procedures are directory. Deviations are reviewed in accordance [with the settled principle that a substantial compliance with the statute is sufficient]. 259 N.W.2d at 804. While these cases dealt with the selection of grand juries, the same rules apply to the selection of petit juries under the rule announced in State v. Wilson, 166 Iowa 309, 315-16, 144 N.W. 47, 49 (1913), where we said in discussing digressions from the literal terms of the statutes: True, all these [cited] decisions relate to the selecting and return of grand jury lists, but those for petit jurors are prepared and returned by the same officers, in the same manner, and are prescribed in the same statutes, differing only in respect to the number of names, and the mode of selecting and returning must also be regarded as directory. 144 N.W. at 50. We hold inclusion in the jury list of persons exempt from jury duty under § 607.2 did not invalidate the panel. We also hold defendant was not denied a fair and impartial jury. See generally State v. Williams, 243 N.W.2d 658, 662 (Iowa 1976); State v. King, 225 N.W.2d 337, 342 (Iowa 1975); State v. Knutson, 220 N.W.2d 575, 577 (Iowa 1974). Defendant's first proposition is without merit.