State v. Bent
2012 NMSC 038
N.M.2012Background
- Indictment issued May 20, 2008 charging two counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor and two counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
- Defendant challenged the grand jury process, arguing the grand jury term under NMSA 31-6-1 had expired before indictment.
- Grand jury term allegedly extended by the district judge, though no written record of the extension exists.
- Defendant was convicted on some charges after trial; Court of Appeals reversed the convictions, deeming the indictment void ab initio.
- Supreme Court assumed the indictment was late but held procedural grand jury errors may be reviewed only pre-trial and remanded for other issues, overturning the Court of Appeals.
- District court’s handling of the grand jury timing created uncertainty and did not pursue an extraordinary writ; pre-trial relief was possible but not pursued.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an indictment issued after a grand jury’s statutory term is void and deprives jurisdiction | Bent argues late indictment voids the grand jury’s jurisdiction | Bent contends extended term exceeded statutory limit and invalidates indictment | No pre-trial remedy; appeal to address broader issues; reversal not warranted on jurisdictional grounds post-conviction |
| Whether a statutory error in grand jury proceedings can be reviewed after a guilty verdict | State argues error is timelier and not cured post-trial | Bent seeks post-conviction relief for grand jury defect | Post-conviction review of grand jury timing is prudential; societal costs of retrial outweigh remedy, so affirm |
| What is the proper remedy when a grand jury term is violated but trial has occurred | Mechanik framework applies; reversal may be warranted | Trial already occurred without reversible effect; no remedy should undo verdict | Mechanik guidance applied; after guilty verdict with no impact on trial, reversal not warranted; societal costs too high |
| Whether the district court could have or should have granted pre-trial relief | Pre-trial quashment or writ could have prevented harm | Relief unavailable after trial; issue should have been addressed earlier | Extraordinary writ allowed pre-trial review but not after conviction; remand for remaining issues |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mechanik, 475 U.S. 66 (1986) (no post-trial remedy to cure grand jury error when verdict stands; societal costs of retrial)
- United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (1974) (grand jury responsibilities include protection from unfounded prosecutions)
- Jones v. Murdoch, 2009-NMSC-002 (N.M. 2009) (pre-indictment remedies for grand jury irregularities; post-indictment review may be inadequate)
- Davis v. Traub, 90 N.M. 498 (1977) (use of extraordinary relief to prevent trial on faulty indictment)
- Chacon, 62 N.M. 291, 309 P.2d 230 (1957) (constitutional requirement of indictment or information; jurisdictional limits)
- Apodaca, 105 N.M. 650, 735 P.2d 1156 (1983) (statutory procedures for grand jury non-jurisdictional; some provisions are directory)
- Ulibarri, 1999-NMCA-142, 128 N.M. 546, 994 P.2d 1164 (1999) (pre-trial quashing for failure to follow grand jury rules)
- Sundance Mechanical & Util. Corp. v. Atlas, 109 N.M. 683, 789 P.2d 1250 (1990) (jurisdiction not deprived by minor statutory defects)