Cited by

Indeed, “the jury is a cornerstone of our democratic system of government.” State v. Elbert, 121 N.H. 43, 44 (1981); see also Pena- Rodriguez v. Colorado, 137 S. Ct. 855, 860 (2017).

We criticized this system in State v. Elbert, 121 N.H. 43, 46 (1981), noting that “[t]he unfettered discretion allowed the selectmen by [the statute] does not require that jurors be of age, literate, voters, or even citizens of the State.” Testimony in that case revealed that selectmen were using various non-random procedures to choose prospective jurors.

Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364 (1979); State v. Elbert, 121 N.H. 43, 45 (1981).

State v. Elbert, 121 N.H. 43, 424 A.2d 1147 (1981) (jury selection challenge); State v. Elbert, 125 N.H. 1, 480 A.2d 854 (1984) (appeal from conviction).

uded is a ‘distinctive’ group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) that this underrepresentation is *332 due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selection process.” Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364 (1979); State v. Elbert, 121 N.H. 43, 45, 424 A.2d 1147, 1148-49 (1981); LaRoche v. Perrin, 718 F.2d 500 (1st Cir. 1983).

The defendant claims, as an additional matter, that our decision in State v. Elbert, 121 N.H. 43, 424 A.2d 1147 (1981) was wrongly decided and that his constitutional guarantee of a jury of his peers was violated.

State v. Elbert, 121 N.H. 43, 45-47, 424 A.2d 1147, 1148-50 (1981); see also State v. Smith, 123 N.H. at ---, 455 A.2d at 1045; State v. LaRoche, 122 N.H. 231, 234, 442 A.2d 602, 604 (1982).

In his final argument, the defendant asks us to reconsiderour decisions in State v. Laroche, 122 N.H. 231, 234, 442 A.2d 602, 604 (1982); State v. Reardon, 121 N.H. 604, 431 A.2d 796, 797 (1981); and State v. Elbert, 121 N.H. 43, 47-48, 424 A.2d 1147, 1150 (1981), wherein we addressed challenges to the jury selection process.

Alternatively, he requested that his motion be joined with other pending cases regarding jury selection, specifically State v. Elbert, 121 N.H. 43, 424 A.2d 1147 (1981).

We dispose of the defendant’s final issue regarding the composition of the jury venire by saying simply that we are satisfied that State v. Elbert, 121 N.H. 43, 424 A.2d 1147 (1981) was properly decided, and we decline to reexamine it.

Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307, 313-14 (1976); see State v. Elbert, 121 N.H. 43, 45-46, 424 A.2d 1147, 1149 (1981).

At the outset, we decline to reconsider our decision in State v. Elbert, 121 N.H. 43, 424 A.2d 1147 (1981), and therefore reject the defendant’s claim with respect to the composition of the jury.

We have not held that young people are a cognizable class and do not do so now.

We recently found that there was no unconstitutional underrepresentation of blacks and young people in the jury venires of Rockingham County.