7 Cal. App. 5th 402
Cal. Ct. App.2017Background
- In 2015 the California Legislature amended Penal Code § 917 to prohibit a criminal grand jury from inquiring into offenses involving a peace officer’s use of lethal force for the purpose of returning an indictment. The amendments took effect Jan. 1, 2016.
- In early 2016 the El Dorado County District Attorney convened a criminal grand jury and issued subpoenas related to a 2015 fatal police shooting, intending to test the constitutionality of § 917.
- Real parties in interest (police associations and the City) moved to quash the subpoenas and dismiss the grand jury; the superior court granted those motions citing § 917.
- The District Attorney petitioned this Court for a writ of mandate directing the superior court to deny the motions and reinstate the grand jury proceedings.
- The Court addressed whether the Legislature may, by statute, eliminate the constitutional grand jury’s power to indict in a defined class of cases (peace‑officer lethal‑force incidents).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 917 validly limits the grand jury’s constitutional power to indict in cases involving police use of lethal force | Pierson: § 917 is a legislative procedural regulation; Legislature may limit grand jury jurisdiction and procedures | Real parties: Legislature properly defined and limited grand jury powers; alternative procedures (information/prelim hearing, § 918 investigation) suffice | Held unconstitutional: Legislature may not, by statute, strip the grand jury of its constitutional power to indict a class of adult criminal cases (including lethal‑force cases) |
| Whether § 918 ‘‘investigation’’ power cures § 917’s restriction | Pierson: § 918 allows investigation and thus preserves meaningful grand jury role | Real parties: § 918 and other procedures provide adequate alternative oversight | Held: § 918 does not cure the constitutional defect—investigative statute cannot substitute for the grand jury’s constitutional indictment power |
| Whether the issue implicates the executive’s charging power or equal protection rights of officers | Pierson alternatively argued statutory infringement on executive charging authority and officers’ equal protection | Real parties relied on those alternative defenses and procedural arguments | Court did not reach these alternative arguments because it resolved the constitutional grand jury issue in petitioner’s favor |
| Remedy: whether superior court should have quashed subpoenas and dismissed grand jury | Pierson: orders were erroneous because § 917 is invalid as applied | Real parties: superior court properly enforced statutory restriction | Held: superior court’s orders quashing subpoenas and dismissing grand jury must be vacated; court must deny motions to quash and dismiss |
Key Cases Cited
- Daily Journal Corp. v. Superior Court, 20 Cal.4th 1117 (recognizing grand jury as a constitutional institution distinct from other branches)
- Fitts v. Superior Court, 6 Cal.2d 230 (historical discussion of grand jury powers and statutory presentments)
- People v. Bird, 212 Cal. 632 (Legislature’s power over indictment/information procedures but limitation that grand jury retained constitutional role)
- McClatchy Newspapers v. Superior Court, 44 Cal.3d 1162 (statutory vs. constitutional functions of grand jury; judiciary oversight of statutory roles)
- Bowens v. Superior Court, 1 Cal.4th 36 (limits on judicial abolition of grand jury power; constitutional protection of indictment procedure)
- M. B. v. Superior Court, 103 Cal.App.4th 1384 (grand jury subpoena and inherent subpoena power in criminal function)