State v. Bent
150 N.M. 561
N.M. Ct. App.2011Background
- Defendant charged with criminal sexual contact of a minor and contributing to delinquency; proceedings centered on alleged cleansing religious practices.
- Grand jury convened October 3, 2007; term extended verbally beyond three months without a written order.
- Indictment presented May 20, 2008 after the grand jury sat only twice (Nov. 2007 and May 2008).
- District court initially denied relief for the extension but noted the statute is advisory and allowed further action.
- State argued de facto grand jury could exist; Defendant argued statute was mandatory and term expired.
- Appellate court held the three-month term is mandatory and an indictment after expiration is void ab initio, depriving district court of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the grand jury term limited to three months and did it expire before indictment? | State asserts term could extend beyond three months; no remedy provided. | Term expired; proceeding invalid; indictment void ab initio. | Three-month term mandatory; indictment void ab initio after expiration. |
| Did the verbal extension by the district judge validly extend the grand jury term? | Extension occurred; there was no written order required for extension. | Extension without written order lacks lawful authority; no statutory basis for extension. | Extension invalid; cannot lawfully extend term beyond three months. |
| Does a void grand jury indictment confer jurisdiction for trial? | Indictment could be cured by proper grand jury action; no prejudice shown. | Indictment void ab initio; district court lacked jurisdiction to proceed. | Indictment void ab initio; district court lacked jurisdiction; case must be dismissed without prejudice. |
| What is the appropriate remedy where a grand jury is improperly convened or its term exceeded? | Remedy may involve continuing proceedings with a de facto grand jury. | Remedy is quash indictment, dismiss without prejudice, discharge defendant. | Remand for entry of order quashing indictment, dismissing case without prejudice, and discharging defendant. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Chacon, 62 N.M. 291 (1957) (fundamental jurisdictional defects dispositive of appeal)
- State v. Laskay, 103 N.M. 799 (Ct.App.1986) (challenges to grand jury legality; enumerated grounds for challenge)
- State v. Ulibarri, 128 N.M. 546 (1999-NMCA-142) (mandatory vs. directory requirements; record and instructions to grand jury)
- State v. Hollenbeck, 112 N.M. 275 (Ct.App.1991) (mandatory preconditions for indictment; enforcement via dismissal)
- State v. Weiss, 105 N.M. 283 (Ct.App.1986) (business-hours requirement as directory; distinction from mandatory core)
- Apodaca, 105 N.M. 650 (Ct.App.1987) (substitution of grand jurors; distinguishes mandatory composition vs. directory matters)
- State v. Dalling, 128 Idaho 203 (1996) (grand jury term expiration voids indictments; de facto grand jury rejected)
- United States v. Fein, 504 F.2d 1170 (2d Cir.1974) (indictment beyond authorized time is a nullity)