State v. Deignan
2016 NMCA 65
| N.M. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Grand jury heard testimony from a sheriff’s detective that defendant touched a 7-year-old over clothing, grabbed her hips, and asked her to touch his penis; charges in proposed indictment included second- and third-degree criminal sexual contact of a minor (CSCM), attempted second-degree CSCM, kidnapping, child abuse, tampering, and witness bribery.
- Prosecutor asked a series of leading questions that recast the detective’s testimony and linked particular testimony to elements of the charged offenses before the grand jury deliberated.
- After testimony (including the leading questions), the grand jury returned true bills on all counts; defendant moved to dismiss, arguing the prosecutor’s leading questions produced an indictment on insufficient evidence and that some jury instructions were incorrect.
- District court denied dismissal, finding no prosecutorial bad faith under NMSA 31-6-11(A) and concluding the leading questions largely summarized the detective’s prior narrative; the court had already dismissed the tampering count for faulty instruction.
- This Court affirmed dismissal denial as to second-degree CSCM, kidnapping, and child abuse counts, but found structural instructional errors requiring dismissal without prejudice of attempted second-degree CSCM, third-degree CSCM, and bribery of a witness.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Deignan's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the prosecutor’s leading questions show "bad faith" permitting review of indictment sufficiency under §31-6-11(A) | No bad faith; summary questions did not evidence dishonesty or intent to mislead | Leading questions improperly suggested probable cause despite insufficient evidence | No bad faith; §31-6-11(A) requires dishonesty/intent, not mere negligence, so sufficiency review denied |
| Whether use of leading questions amounted to structural error invalidating the indictment | Leading questions merely summarized detective’s lengthy narrative and fell within prosecutor’s role | Leading questions coerced or directed grand jury and undermined independence | Not structural error here—questions did not prevent independent grand jury inquiry; affirmed |
| Scope of Herrera v. Sanchez: did prosecutor’s conduct compromise grand jury independence | Herrera should not be read so broadly; prosecutor may summarize testimony and relate it to elements | Herrera requires reversal where prosecutor advises grand jury how to interpret instructions or suppresses testimony | Herrera requires totality-of-circumstances analysis; here conduct did not compromise independence under Herrera |
| Whether prosecutor failed to properly instruct grand jury on certain counts per Ulibarri | Prosecutor referenced manual pages; argued compliance | Prosecutor read elements incorrectly or omitted required predicate felony references | Structural instructional errors found for attempted 2nd-degree CSCM, 3rd-degree CSCM, and witness bribery — those counts reversed and dismissed without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Romero, 140 N.M. 281, 142 P.3d 362 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006) (discussing "bad faith" as prerequisite to judicial review of indictment sufficiency)
- State v. Sanchez, 95 N.M. 27, 618 P.2d 371 (N.M. Ct. App. 1980) (criticized prosecutorial presentation via leading questions before grand jury)
- Jones v. Murdoch, 145 N.M. 473, 200 P.3d 523 (N.M. 2009) (structural error standard: errors that strike at the heart of grand jury’s probable-cause assessment)
- State v. Ulibarri, 128 N.M. 546, 994 P.2d 1164 (N.M. Ct. App. 1999) (prosecutor must on the record direct grand jurors to manual pages containing elements and properly instruct on elements)