Commonwealth v. Welosky
1931 Mass. LEXIS 1045, 276 Mass. 398, 177 N.E. 656 (1931)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The ratification of a constitutional amendment granting a new class of citizens the right to vote does not automatically alter the meaning of a pre-existing state statute linking jury service to voter eligibility. Such a fundamental change in long-standing practice requires an express legislative act and is not accomplished by implication or the dynamic expansion of the electorate.
Facts:
- A Massachusetts statute (G. L. c. 234, § 1) stated that 'A person qualified to vote for representatives to the general court shall be liable to serve as a juror.'
- Historically, under the Massachusetts Constitution, only men were qualified to vote, and jury pools were composed exclusively of men.
- In August 1920, the Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified, prohibiting the denial of the right to vote on account of sex, thereby making women in Massachusetts eligible to vote.
- Following the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment, a female defendant was set to be tried on a criminal complaint.
- The jury lists from which the jurors for the defendant's trial were to be drawn contained no women.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was charged under a criminal complaint in a Massachusetts trial court.
- As the jury was about to be empaneled, the defendant filed a challenge to the entire jury array, arguing that the exclusion of women was unlawful.
- The trial court presumably overruled the challenge and proceeded with the trial.
- Following the trial, the defendant appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, the state's highest court, on exceptions to the trial court's rulings, including the denial of the jury challenge.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the exclusion of women from jury lists violate a Massachusetts statute linking jury eligibility to voter qualification or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, following the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment which granted women the right to vote?
Opinions:
Majority - Rugg, C.J.
No. The exclusion of women from jury lists does not violate Massachusetts law or the Fourteenth Amendment. The state statute defining juror eligibility, though using the general term 'person,' was enacted with the clear and sole legislative intent to include only men, as only men could vote at the time. The Nineteenth Amendment, while a 'radical, drastic and unprecedented' change, was limited to suffrage and did not, by implication, alter the long-standing composition of juries, a change that requires express legislative action. Furthermore, the exclusion does not violate the Equal Protection Clause, as states retain the power to set juror qualifications, and the historical precedents barring racial discrimination from juries do not apply to sex-based classifications in this context.
Analysis:
This decision exemplifies a method of statutory interpretation that prioritizes original legislative intent and historical context over a literal, dynamic reading of a statute's text. It establishes that major social and constitutional changes, like women's suffrage, do not automatically expand the scope of pre-existing laws in related but distinct areas such as jury service, especially when it involves overturning centuries of common law tradition. The ruling places the responsibility squarely on the legislature to explicitly update statutes to reflect new legal realities, rather than having courts infer such significant changes. This created a split of authority among state courts wrestling with the same issue in the post-suffrage era.
Unlock the full brief for Commonwealth v. Welosky