de Leon v. Hartley
2014 NMSC 005
N.M.2013Background
- Defendant De Leon was indicted by a grand jury; on the eve of trial he moved to quash the indictment alleging irregularities in grand juror selection and excusal.
- The district court clerk convened an initial randomized list of potential grand jurors and conducted an orientation and swearing-in; thereafter the district attorney’s (DA) office took over calling prospective grand jurors for sessions.
- DA staff handled calls and voicemails from jurors who reported inability to attend; records of the panel used to indict De Leon contained notations suggesting DA involvement in excusals, though staff denied formally excusing jurors.
- The district court found no fraud or prejudice and denied the motion to quash; it also denied interlocutory appeal requests. De Leon petitioned this Court for a writ of superintending control.
- The Supreme Court concluded the DA effectively controlled selection/excusals, that the district court improperly delegated its constitutionally and statutorily assigned supervisory role, and issued a writ directing the indictment be quashed (without prejudice to reindict).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court may delegate selection/excusal of grand jurors to the district attorney | De Leon: DA controlled selection/excusals, undermining grand jury independence; court must quash indictment | State/DA: Court may assign personnel to aid grand jury under §31‑6‑7(A); no showing of fraud or prejudice means no relief | Court: District court must maintain complete control; delegation to DA is impermissible; indictment quashed when irregularity is timely raised |
| Whether dismissal requires showing of fraud or prejudice when irregularity is timely raised before trial | De Leon: Timely challenge obviates need to show actual prejudice or fraud | State/DA: Apodaca suggests dismissal requires showing of actual prejudice because statutes are directory | Court: When DA controls selection and defendant timely raises issue before trial, dismissal is required; statutory role is mandatory, not merely directory |
| Proper interpretation of statutory/constitutional role in convening grand jury | De Leon: Constitution and statutes assign convening and qualifying to the district court as a neutral overseer | State/DA: §31‑6‑7(A) allows court to assign personnel to aid grand jury, implying some delegation is permissible | Court: §31‑6‑7(A) allows support staff but does not authorize delegating supervisory selection/excusal duties to DA |
| Remedy when irregularity is brought to court before trial | De Leon: Court should promptly remedy, up to quashing indictment | State/DA: Relying on precedent requiring prejudice, argued no remedy necessary absent fraud | Court: Quash indictment without prejudice; preserve State’s right to reinitiate proceedings under proper grand jury process |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Murdoch, 145 N.M. 473, 200 P.3d 523 (N.M. 2009) (grand jury is distinct from prosecution; caution against conflating roles)
- State v. Ulibarri, 128 N.M. 546, 994 P.2d 1164 (N.M. Ct. App. 1999) (grand jury duty to protect citizens from unfounded accusations)
- Calandra v. United States, 414 U.S. 338 (U.S. 1974) (grand jury protects citizens from unfounded prosecutions)
- State v. Bent, 289 P.3d 1225 (N.M. 2012) (distinguishing remedies depending on when grand jury irregularity is raised)
- State v. Apodaca, 105 N.M. 650, 735 P.2d 1156 (N.M. Ct. App. 1987) (condemned prosecutor discharge/selection of jurors; addressed remedy post-conviction)
- State v. Gunthorpe, 81 N.M. 515, 469 P.2d 160 (N.M. Ct. App. 1970) (treated certain selection procedures as directory when court itself controlled process)
- U.S. v. Laurent, 86 F. Supp. 2d 71 (E.D.N.Y. 2000) (illustrative commentary on grand jury perception and potential for prosecutorial influence)