Court Opinion

ID: 9657248
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:18:10.365193+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:42.460490
License: Public Domain

MILLER, Justice
(concurring in part, concurring in result in part).
I fully concur with the majority writing, except for the ending phrase of Issue 4 (“Pennington County Jury Pool”) and therefore I can only concur in the result on that issue.
The majority, by dicta, states:
An ‘inherent’ exclusion of Indians from the jury selection process may also be found with statistical evidence showing that the voting list results in an under-representation of Indians (citing the California case of People v. Harris). If under-representation is shown, fairness requires supplementation of the jury panel.
First, that statement goes beyond the settled holdings of both Duren and Plenty Horse as neither provide or allude to any type of supplementation. Second, it is premature to make that statement, since the majority has concluded that no “inherent” exclusion was present here. Lastly, and most importantly, to state that a jury list must be supplemented is an oversimplification of what is in reality an insurmountable task, unless detailed direction is given. It ignores this basic question: “How do we supplement the panel?” To include such a broad sweeping statement, which will certainly be relied upon by counsel, does nothing more than create confusion for the trial bench and bar.
Once we are properly presented with a question, it is our duty to answer it and to give appropriate guidelines. However, to slip such gratuitous, grandiose dicta into such an important area of the law does nothing more than create dilemmas. I refuse to be a party to that.
I am authorized to state that Chief Justice WUEST joins in this concurrence in part and concurrence in result in part.