This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The case involves two consolidated matters concerning the presentation of cases to a grand jury. In the first case, two defendants were charged with drug-related offenses, including trafficking cocaine, conspiracy, possession of marijuana, and drug paraphernalia. In the second case, a defendant was charged with multiple offenses, including murder, aggravated battery, and tampering with evidence. The central issue arose from the prosecutor's failure to instruct the grand jury on the essential elements of the offenses on the record (paras 1-7).
Procedural History
- District Court, September 23, 1997: The court dismissed the indictments against the first two defendants, finding that the prosecutor's failure to instruct the grand jury on the essential elements of the offenses violated statutory requirements (paras 4-5).
- District Court, December 9, 1997: The court denied the motion to dismiss the indictment in the second case, holding that the defendant failed to demonstrate actual prejudice despite the prosecutor's procedural violations (para 7).
Parties' Submissions
- State: Argued that verbal instructions on the elements of the offenses were not required and that the grand jury had sufficient advisory materials, including a manual, proposed indictments, and access to a judge. The State contended that the procedure complied with established practices and that actual prejudice must be shown to warrant dismissal (paras 3, 6-7, 9).
- Defendants: Asserted that the prosecutor's failure to instruct the grand jury on the essential elements of the offenses on the record violated statutory and procedural requirements. They argued that providing a manual was insufficient and that the lack of a verbatim record undermined the integrity of the grand jury process (paras 3, 6, 9).
Legal Issues
- Whether a prosecutor is required to instruct the grand jury on the essential elements of the offenses on the record (para 1).
- Whether the failure to provide such instructions constitutes a violation of statutory and procedural requirements (paras 9-10).
- Whether defendants must demonstrate actual prejudice to obtain relief for procedural violations in grand jury proceedings (para 7).
Disposition
- The dismissal of the indictments in the first case (State v. Ulibarri and Popplewell) was affirmed (para 25).
- The denial of the motion to dismiss the indictment in the second case (State v. Montoya) was reversed (para 25).
Reasons
Per Bustamante J. (Donnelly and Bosson JJ. concurring):
The Court held that the prosecutor's failure to instruct the grand jury on the essential elements of the offenses on the record violated statutory and procedural requirements under Sections 31-6-8 and 31-6-10, Rule 5-506(B), and UJI 14-8001. The Court emphasized that providing a manual was insufficient to ensure compliance, as it did not create a verbatim record of the proceedings (paras 9-10, 15-16).
The Court reasoned that the grand jury serves as a safeguard against unfounded accusations and must be properly guided in its deliberations. A verbatim record of the prosecutor's instructions is necessary to ensure transparency and accountability in the process (paras 10-12, 16).
The Court rejected the State's argument that actual prejudice must be shown, holding that the failure to comply with procedural requirements goes to the heart of the grand jury system and warrants dismissal without a showing of prejudice (paras 13-15, 17).
To address future cases, the Court outlined a procedure requiring prosecutors to explicitly direct the grand jury to the relevant elements of the offenses on the record and to ensure that these elements are made part of the record (paras 19-20).
The Court limited its ruling to cases currently pending and untried in the Second Judicial District, emphasizing that dismissals for procedural violations are without prejudice, allowing for reindictment (paras 23-24).