Case Information

*1 October 24, 1971 ,lonorable Henry Wade District Attorney Opinion No. H-1076 Dallas ~County,Government Center Re: Use six-person juries Dallas, :Texas 75202 in civil cases'in county

courts at law when the amount in controversy exceeds $l,OOO.OO.

Dear Mr. wade:

:~You have requested our opinion whether civil cases in county courts~,at law may be tried before a jury of six persons .when the amount.in controversy exceeds $l,OOO.OO.

. '~

In Jordan v. Crudgington, 231 S.W.2d 641 (Tex. 19501, the court,h~ela unconstitu~tional a statute which provided for six- person juries in a court of domestic relations. The court, statea that article 1, section 15 of the Texas Constitution,; which provides tile iright to trial by jury, contemplates a twelve-person jury, and that in the absence of a constitutional provision .

expressly prescribing the number of jurors i.n a court.established by the Legislature .under the authority of the amendment of $891 [Tex. Con&. art.. 5, S 11 . . . the consti- tutional~provieian preserving the right of trial by jliry requires that juries in cok!rte 6f record . . . be composed of twelve men.

Id. at.646. The cotirt,also noted that..the only~constitutional ~oviaione dealing with the number of jurors were article 5, .&ections 13 and 17, whi.ch provide for juries'of twelve in dis- trict courts"and six in county cou.rts, respectively. .,

In,Ex Parte Melton, 279 S.W.2d 362 '(Tex. Grim. App. 1956), the,court upheld a conviction in the Iiidalgo County Court at Law.b&fore a, jury'tif six persons, stating:

,An examination of the Act reveals that no jurisdiction has been conferred on the court. created which is not exercised by county *2 - page 2 (H-1076) courts generally under the Constitution and ,.laws of this State.

From these provisions, we &nclude that the Legislature, by the passage of the Hiaalgo County act, intended to and aid create a county court to be known as the County Court at Law, in which trials should be had to a jury of:six rather than twelve in accor- dance.with the terms of.Article.V, Section 29, of the Constitution, and that the Jordan case i,s not here controlling. Id. at 364.

-

Dallas County Courts at Law have been created' by articles 1970-l to 1970-31.1, V.T.C.S., "under the authority of the amend- ment of 1891" [to article 5, section 1 the Texas Constitution]. Jordan v. Crudqinqton, supra at'64.6. Their jurisdiction is not coextensive with that of constitutional county courts. V.T.C.S.

hart. 1970a; Regian v. Sowell, ,534 S.W.2d 175 (Tax. Civ. App. --

Waco 1976, writ ref'd n.r.e.)i: Consequently, the Melton court's distinction, of Jordan v. Crudqinqton appears not to-bepplica- ble; in our view,the'court's opinion in Jordan would probably be .' held to ,be the controlling,Texas law.

We note, however, that the Jordan court's construction of article 1, section 15 of the Texas Constitution was based on'a "general agreement" among the authorities on the meaning of the term Itjury. Since that time several courts,, 'including the., United States Supreme Court, have found juries .of.less than twelve persons to be constitutionally permissible. Colqrove v. Battin, 413 U.S. ~149 (1973); Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 m) Pitcher v. Lakes Amusement Co., ,236 N, X2d 333 (Iowa 1975): In re P.L. No. 305 and P.L. No. 309 of the Indiana Acts of 1975, 334 N.E.2d 659 (Ind. 1975); Opinion of the Justices, 271 N.E.2d 335 (Mass. 1971) (all of rhich were decimliams and found state constitutional reauirements to oermit iurias of less than twelve persons). c -__-- - _-_F___.~~~_

!mtra Paode V. CollinS, 552 P.2d 742 (Cal. 1976); Gilbreath VT Wallace, ,292 So.2d 651 (Ala. 1974);

, 278 A.2d 852 (R.I. 1971) (all of illiams and found state constitutions Statute required juries of twelve persons). Reducing Number of Jurors as Trialby Jury,

Annot., 47 A.L.R. 3d 895 (1973); Supreme Court's COnStruCtiOn of Seventh Amendments's Guaranty of Riqht to Trial by Jurv. AnnOt.. 40 L.Ed. 2d 846,(1975). While,Jordan appears to be ling Texas law, we caution that=2 *3 - Page 3 (H-1076)

the federal government and of other states since the time that case was decided suggest that it is possible that the Texas Supreme Court may reexamine Jordan if the issue is presented to it.

SUMMARY While Jordan v. Crudgington remains unal- tered, juries of twelve persons appear to be,re&ked in the Dallas County Courts at Law. We caution, however, that major changes inthe law of the federal govern- ment and of other states since the time of Jordan suggest the possibility that the Texas Supreme Court may reexamine Jordan if the issue is presented to it. Attorney General.of Texas APPROVED:

Opinion Committee

', jst