Ross v. Aguirre
Headline: Court upheld California’s 1893 amendment to jury-selection law, rejected challenge to its title, and left indictments chosen under that law valid.
Holding: The Court affirmed the lower court’s order, holding that the 1893 state law properly reenacted and amended specific jury-selection sections, so the grand jury selected under that law was legally constituted and the indictment stands.
- Leaves indictments chosen under the 1893 law valid.
- Confirms Superior Courts can directly select grand jurors under that amendment.
- Allows focused statutory amendments that reenact text to be upheld.
Summary
Background
A person indicted by a grand jury challenged the way that grand jury was chosen. Before 1893, county supervisors made lists of potential grand jurors, the county clerk put names on folded slips and drew jurors by lot. In 1893 the state legislature passed an act changing the process so that the Superior Court itself would select and list grand jurors. The challenger argued the 1893 law was void because its title did not meet a state constitutional requirement, relying on a prior state case called Lewis v. Dunne.
Reasoning
The central question was whether the 1893 act was lawful or so defective in title and form that it left the grand jury illegally chosen. The Court explained that Lewis v. Dunne invalidated a broad revising act that did not reenact amended law in full, but that the 1893 statute here plainly named and reenacted the specific Code sections it changed. The Court said the 1893 act had a single purpose, was confined to amending particular sections, and therefore was not the kind of unlawful revision condemned in Lewis. The opinion also cited state decisions saying an amendatory act that gives the original act’s title and section number is sufficient. On that basis the Court accepted the state court’s conclusion.
Real world impact
Because the Court found the 1893 act valid, the grand jury selected under it was legally constituted and the lower-court order was affirmed. The decision leaves indictments chosen under that selection process in force and confirms that narrowly focused statutory amendments that reenact amended sections are valid under the State constitution.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?