Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 34 and Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 15: Difference between pages
(Difference between pages)
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
m (Text replacement - ")↵↵}}" to ") |seo_title= |seo_keywords= |seo_description= |seo_image_alt=Texas Bill of Rights }}") |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{DISPLAYTITLE:Article I, Section | {{DISPLAYTITLE:Article I, Section 15 of the Texas Constitution (''<small>"Right of Trial by Jury"</small>'')}}{{Texas Constitution|text=As amended August 24, 1935: | ||
''' | '''The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate. The Legislature shall pass such laws as may be needed to regulate the same, and to maintain its purity and efficiency. Provided, that the Legislature may provide for the temporary commitment, for observation and/or treatment, of mentally ill persons not charged with a criminal offense, for a period of time not to exceed ninety (90) days, by order of the County Court without the necessity of a trial by jury.''' | ||
|editor= | |editor= | ||
This section | This section has been amended once. The 1935 amendment added a third sentence to the original text. | ||
Note that Article V, Section [[Texas Constitution:Article V, Section 10|10]] guarantees the "right of trial by jury" for "all causes in the District Courts." | |||
|other= | |other= | ||
| Line 23: | Line 15: | ||
|recent= | |recent= | ||
* ''General Motors Corp. v. Gayle'', 951 S.W.2d 469, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10591039786654184436#p476 476] (Tex. 1997) ("General Motors argues that the trial court abused its discretion by not granting a continuance for at least thirty days, which would have rendered General Motors' jury request and payment timely. ''See'' ''Halsell v. Dehoyos'', 810 S.W.2d 371, 371 (Tex. 1991) (where case is continued, new trial date determines whether payment of jury fee is timely). Under the unique facts of this case, we agree. The right to jury trial is one of our most precious rights, holding 'a sacred place in English and American history.' ''White v. White'', [] 196 S.W. 508, 512 (1917).") | |||
* ''Barshop v. Medina County Underground Water Conservation Dist.'', 925 S.W.2d 618, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5566571311140648897#p636 636] (Tex. 1996) ("Similarly, we conclude that there was no governmental scheme in 1876 to regulate natural resources such as the Edwards Aquifer. We therefore hold that no right to jury trial under article I, section 15 of the Texas Constitution attaches to appeals from the permit adjudications under the Act since these are not actions, or analogous actions, which were tried to a jury at the time the Texas Constitution was adopted. We next consider the right to trial by jury protected by article V, section 10 of the Texas Constitution.") | |||
|historic= | |historic= | ||
* ''Ex parte Moser'', 602 S.W.2d 530, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17035913639337663507#p533 533] (Tex.Crim.App. 1980) (citations omitted) ("The first of these is that the procedure infringed on the right to trial by jury which is guarantied by Article I, Section 15, of the Texas Constitution. We have held frequently that that right does not include any right to have a jury assess punishment. There is even less merit in the applicant's claim that the procedure violates a statutory . . . . The Legislature having statutorily created assessment of punishment by the jury, the Legislature may alter or abolish that procedure (within the bounds of due process and other constitutional strictures).") | |||
* ''White v. White'', 196 S.W. 508, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/Vol_196_SWR_508.pdf#page=5 512] (Tex. 1917) ("[E]specially under the provision that 'the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate,' which language has formed a part of every Constitution of this state and of the Constitution of the republic of Texas as well, and of many Constitutions of our sister states, with a well-established import and meaning, the defendant in error clearly was entitled to a trial by jury, in the full constitutional sense, if that practice prevailed in this state, according to then existing laws, at the time of the adoption of said provisions as portions of our present state Constitution of 1876.") | |||
* ''Cockrill v. Cox'', 65 Tex. 669, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/65_Tex._669.pdf#page=4 672-73] (1886) ("All the constitutions of the Republic and State of Texas have preserved the right of trial by jury, in the same language. Const. of Republic, 9th clause of Declaration of Rights; Const. of 1845, sec. 12, art. 1; Const. of 1866, sec. 12, art. 1; Const. of 1869, sec. 12, art. 1; Const. of 1876, sec. 15, art. 1. . . . As far as the history of the practice is preserved in reported cases, the right of trial by jury, in such contests as this, has been recognized and exercised under all the constitutions and laws that, at different times, have prescribed the jurisdiction and regulated the procedure of our courts.") | |||
|seo_title= | |seo_title= | ||
| Line 37: | Line 35: | ||
[[Category:Texas Bill of Rights]] | [[Category:Texas Bill of Rights]] | ||
[[Category: | [[Category:Criminal Procedure]] | ||
[[Category:Civil Procedure-Texas]] | |||
[[Category:TxCon ArtI Sec]] | [[Category:TxCon ArtI Sec]] | ||
Revision as of 11:56, July 3, 2023
As amended August 24, 1935:
The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate. The Legislature shall pass such laws as may be needed to regulate the same, and to maintain its purity and efficiency. Provided, that the Legislature may provide for the temporary commitment, for observation and/or treatment, of mentally ill persons not charged with a criminal offense, for a period of time not to exceed ninety (90) days, by order of the County Court without the necessity of a trial by jury.
Editor Comments
This section has been amended once. The 1935 amendment added a third sentence to the original text.
Note that Article V, Section 10 guarantees the "right of trial by jury" for "all causes in the District Courts."
Recent Decisions
- General Motors Corp. v. Gayle, 951 S.W.2d 469, 476 (Tex. 1997) ("General Motors argues that the trial court abused its discretion by not granting a continuance for at least thirty days, which would have rendered General Motors' jury request and payment timely. See Halsell v. Dehoyos, 810 S.W.2d 371, 371 (Tex. 1991) (where case is continued, new trial date determines whether payment of jury fee is timely). Under the unique facts of this case, we agree. The right to jury trial is one of our most precious rights, holding 'a sacred place in English and American history.' White v. White, [] 196 S.W. 508, 512 (1917).")
- Barshop v. Medina County Underground Water Conservation Dist., 925 S.W.2d 618, 636 (Tex. 1996) ("Similarly, we conclude that there was no governmental scheme in 1876 to regulate natural resources such as the Edwards Aquifer. We therefore hold that no right to jury trial under article I, section 15 of the Texas Constitution attaches to appeals from the permit adjudications under the Act since these are not actions, or analogous actions, which were tried to a jury at the time the Texas Constitution was adopted. We next consider the right to trial by jury protected by article V, section 10 of the Texas Constitution.")
Historic Decisions
- Ex parte Moser, 602 S.W.2d 530, 533 (Tex.Crim.App. 1980) (citations omitted) ("The first of these is that the procedure infringed on the right to trial by jury which is guarantied by Article I, Section 15, of the Texas Constitution. We have held frequently that that right does not include any right to have a jury assess punishment. There is even less merit in the applicant's claim that the procedure violates a statutory . . . . The Legislature having statutorily created assessment of punishment by the jury, the Legislature may alter or abolish that procedure (within the bounds of due process and other constitutional strictures).")
- White v. White, 196 S.W. 508, 512 (Tex. 1917) ("[E]specially under the provision that 'the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate,' which language has formed a part of every Constitution of this state and of the Constitution of the republic of Texas as well, and of many Constitutions of our sister states, with a well-established import and meaning, the defendant in error clearly was entitled to a trial by jury, in the full constitutional sense, if that practice prevailed in this state, according to then existing laws, at the time of the adoption of said provisions as portions of our present state Constitution of 1876.")
- Cockrill v. Cox, 65 Tex. 669, 672-73 (1886) ("All the constitutions of the Republic and State of Texas have preserved the right of trial by jury, in the same language. Const. of Republic, 9th clause of Declaration of Rights; Const. of 1845, sec. 12, art. 1; Const. of 1866, sec. 12, art. 1; Const. of 1869, sec. 12, art. 1; Const. of 1876, sec. 15, art. 1. . . . As far as the history of the practice is preserved in reported cases, the right of trial by jury, in such contests as this, has been recognized and exercised under all the constitutions and laws that, at different times, have prescribed the jurisdiction and regulated the procedure of our courts.")
Library Resources
- Vernon's Annotated Constitution of the State of Texas (this multi-volume and up-to-date resource is available at all law libraries and many municipal libraries)
- The Texas State Constitution: A Reference Guide (this one-volume resource is available at most law libraries and some municipal libraries)
- The Constitution of the State of Texas: An Annotated and Comparative Analysis (this two-volume resource is available at most law libraries and some municipal libraries)
Online Resources
- Constitution of the State of Texas (1876) (this resource is published and maintained by the University of Texas School of Law)
- Amendments to the Texas Constitution Since 1876 (this resource is published and regularly updated by the Legislative Council)
- Reports Analyzing Proposed Amendments (this resource is published and regularly updated by the Legislative Reference Library)