AI Generated Opinion Summaries

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 petitioner challenged the integrity of his grand jury indictment, arguing that the district court improperly involved the district attorney's office in the selection of the grand jury panel. The district court held an evidentiary hearing, revealing that the district court jury clerk removed some potential jurors based on hardship reports, and the district attorney's office subsequently managed the selection and excusal of jurors for the grand jury sessions without further court involvement. The district court denied the petitioner's motion to quash the indictment, leading to the petitioner seeking a writ of superintending control from the Supreme Court on the eve of his trial (paras 2-7).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner: Argued that the district court improperly enlisted the district attorney's office in the selection of the grand jury panel, compromising the integrity of the grand jury process (para 2).
• Respondent and Real Party in Interest: Contended that there was no fraud or prejudice to the petitioner in the conduct of the grand jury proceeding that resulted in his indictment (para 6).

Legal Issues

• Whether the involvement of the district attorney's office in the selection and excusal of grand jurors compromised the integrity of the grand jury process and warranted quashing the indictment (paras 1, 7-20).

Disposition

• The Supreme Court issued a writ of superintending control directing the district court to quash the indictment without prejudice to the State’s right to reinstate new criminal proceedings against the petitioner (para 1).

Reasons

• Justices Richard C. Bosson, Charles W. Daniels, and Barbara J. Vigil concurred in the opinion. The Court found that the grand jury must remain free of the perception of being under the control of the prosecutor to maintain its role as a credible, independent entity. The Court held that it was the district court's sole responsibility to decide who shall serve as grand jurors, and delegating this role to the district attorney's office compromised the grand jury's integrity. The Court distinguished this case from previous rulings by emphasizing the importance of addressing grand jury irregularities before trial. The Court concluded that the district court erred in not quashing the indictment after the petitioner demonstrated the district attorney's control over the selection and excusal of grand jurors and brought this issue to the court's attention well before trial (paras 8-20).