*1 696 corroborating indi- us, evidence no there is before record 645.630(2) and NRS Biegler violated cating that Harold therefore, and, portion of the Commission’s is reversed.
decision
Dorothy Biegler
2. The record fails to establish
to,
with,
responsibilities
regard
any dealings
the Felkins with
property,
there is no evidence that she
and
the sale
any
alleged violations. See Rudin v. Nevada
committed
Comm’n,
Advisory
Nev.
Accordingly, imposition we remand this case for the of a Biegler, upon with penalty Harold consistent this decision. J.,C. Gunderson, Manoukian, Mowbray, and and Baxter, JJ., concur. Appellant, BIGLIERI, WASHOE COUNTY v.
CLYDE 15, 1976, MARCH REPORT DATED JURY GRAND Respondent.
No. October Pevar, Union, Denver, Civil American Liberties L. Steven Reno, Stephens,
Colorado, Appellant. D. for Wallace County, Dunlap, Attorney, District X.R. Calvin Respondent. *2 OPINION Court,
By C. J.: Mowbray, Clyde Biglieri appeals district court’s dismissal petition expunge portions County his various of the Washoe Report, Jury disseminated on March 1976. we Since agree portions report that those were issued in excess authority grand jury’s 172.175(3)1, lawful under NRS we reverse. provides pertinent part: 1 NRS pursuant single any person “No to this section shall out issued or directly innuendo, imputation persons byor or otherwise accuses such person persons wrongdoing of a which if true or would constitute an indictable accompanied presentment offense a unless or indictment person persons.”
such or petition a Recently, to review similar Court had occasion Conforte, prin- brought by Joseph one of the expungement investigative report. See In re 15th targets the March cipal Jury Report, Nev. 590 P.2d Washoe constitutionality time, upheld we of NRS (1979). At that investigate and to empowers the 172.175(2)which morals, welfare, pertaining to the report on matters repor- community; found these safety but we also P.2d at 624. powers limit. Id. at are not without torial issuing investigative grand jury, example, when a For report, individual, directly may either or accuse a named not returning without an indict- indirectly, indictable offense of an 625; presentment. at 590 P.2d at Id. ment case, opinion appellant concedes that our the instant effectively disposes of his constitutional insists, however, report. He March 15th on the attacks portions effect, what report, accuse him of amounts of that opportunity activity giving him the without judicial charges agree. We in a forum.2 respond to those fully Though background we have detailed the factual County opinion, March 15th mary in our Washoe brief sum- *3 in order here. is July, Jury In the Washoe commenced upon investigation commonly which a an focused transaction scope to as the Conforte Land Transaction. The of referred the investigation expanded considerably, ultimately involving Councils, Sparks City the members of the Reno Commission, Authority. the and Washoe Convention publicly grand jury disseminated its on The March 1976. presentments accompanied report. or indictments the
No jury emphasized “nothing grand that The said in this is accuse, imply, any per- to or create an intended innuendo caveat, Despite a criminal offense.” has committed this son the sharply public criticized various named officials for public breaching officials, allegedly their trust. These named petitioned initially appellant expungement 2 Though the district court for of presently expungement jury report, grand he seeks of those entire the portions by innuendo, “directly imputation, single him out or other note, wrongdoing. regard, appellant wise,” possible We in this criminal of portions standing challenge report dealing of the to the with not have does Jury Report, County Grand re Washoe 95 Nev. at individuals. other P.2d at 624. grand jury, according the capaci- had acted in to their official public disclosing ties on matters interest without their con- flicting personal in interests those matters. Biglieri, City Councilman,
Appellant then a Reno was one of singled report. out for in grand the officials criticism the The jury appellant performed concluded that his official duties respect to the with Conforte Land Transaction and to a related city proposed having council vote on a tax room increase while personal grand a stake the outcome of those matters. The jury findings following allegations: appellant’s based its on real estate firm had handled the Conforte Land Transaction and, result, appellant large as a had received a commission Conforte; appellant portion was aware that a substantial pursuant revenues raised to the room tax increase would city purchase parcel Conforte; used to a be appellant of land from position major knew that reap Conforte was in to sale; profits appellant from this had received a substantial cam- Conforte; paign appellant urged by contribution from was proposed increase; Conforte vote in of the to favor room tax had, fact, tie-breaking cast the vote in favor of the and, increase; significantly, appellant tax most knew he had a receiving chance of extensive Conforte business in connection development parcel with the future sale and of land course, by Conforte. Of retained since no indictment was returned, truth of these cannot be ascertained. question validity portions The these the March report, unaccompanied by presentment, 15th indictment or now before Court. reportorial grand jury, The serving function of the to
enlighten community public importance, on matters of occupies important position gov- our democratic form of guard, distinguish ernment. We must be on our power public upon between affairs power Ormsby and its Jury, accuse of offenses. In re singling 74 Nev. When out an through conduct, possible individual accusations inquisitor; inquisitorial role, acts as an in its Id.; must either indict or be silent. principle quite simply behind this limitation is that: subject quasi should be man not made official [A] accu- *4 sation of misconduct which he cannot answer in forum; making authoritative that in such accusation the exceeding reportorial pro- is its function and is ceeding impose punishment reprimand. to the of . . . 1100; Jury, 322 P.2d at see Ormsby 74 Nev. at re In Session, Comm., Legislative Judiciary State also Nevada underlying 1973) (commenting the (April on at 376
Minutes words, thing 172.175(3)). it is one In other NRS intent although practices, jury that official acts grand toffind law, public opposed trust expressly are to forbidden not scrutiny; quite public exposed it is another to be should and thing, jury adjudge to grand “to such conduct for the wrong which is censurable or morally or to be misconduct be 85-86, Ormsby Jury, 74 Nev. at re actionable.” at 1102. P.2d proper unlaw- dividing criticism and line between The possible criminal conduct is often difficult to accusations ful discern, be drawn. The learned district it one which must but below, heavily relying that
judge on the fact Nevada’s did take effect until after dis- laws not of interest conflict jury’s report grand jury’s grand and on the semination expressed “[njothing opinion in is intended said this that any person accuse, has imply, an innuendo that or create to offense,” report did concluded that the a criminal committed any appellant offenses. We cannot indictable accuse not 245.075, conflict of interest the criminal stat- agree. While NRS ute, note that NRS not take effect until we did gross misdemeanor for 197.110(2), in makes it enacted interested, beneficially directly or indi- public officer to a rectly, “[b]e contract, sale, purchase may any lease or be officer, supervision by, through of such in whole or under made grand find part . . . .” We account of inor respect to conduct with the Conforte Land Trans- appellant’s city subsequent proposed council vote on the and the action purview squarely within the increase falls stat- tax room ute. effect, jury, appellant has accused grand of official “probable cause” to believe If the misconduct. conduct, relating appellant’s to then of its truth duty present- with its was return a only consistent to course indictment, thereby allowing appellant day his in court ment or If, falsity charges. of these NRS truth or test the hand, jury was not satisfied with the the other on conduct, concerning appellant’s accuracy information- of its general pertaining on terms matters it could then See What the public welfare. suggest to was was not free do was consequences avoid the of its and then guilty misconduct refusing findings by indict. *5 Moreover, by this Court not bound own report nothing in its assertion was intended to accuse activity. of criminal If the could deter- judicial review, mine, legal free from effect of its fashion, opportunity it have such a would unlimited to include allegations of indictable offenses in violation of NRS while, time, 172.175(3) immunizing at the same its bald attack statement that those accusations did not wrongdoing. generally See amount In re Washoe Jury Report, supra. grant We decline to power: grand jury may such unfettered not transform its inquiry, safeguards in which the most minimal are subjects investigations, 172.145, its accorded see NRS culminating published into a secret trial in the condemnation an individual. reasons, judgment For above we reverse the of the dis- deny trict court and remand the cause with directions to summary respondent’s judgment motion for par- and to enter summary judgment appellant, P.26, L.7, expunging tial through L.16, P.27, inclusive, from the March Jury. of the Washoe Thompson, Gunderson, Manoukian, JJ., concur. J., concurring:
Batjer,
majority opinion
allega-
sets forth the accusations and
against Biglieri
grand jury report.
tions
contained in the
Not
legitimately
one of these
could be
support
used to
an
197.110(2),
indictment or information for violation of NRS
applying
probable
e.g.
Nevada’s
cause standard. See
Franklin
State,
(1973);
v.
89 Nev.
I must with the imputation there could be innuendo such a violation. appears Legislature it to be the Since intent the Nevada jury impotent function, reporting render the in its I have by major- to concur in no alternative but ity the result reached and conclude that NRS mandates reversal in this case.