In th e S u p re m e Co u rt o f Ge o rg ia

De c id e d : Ma rc h 1 6 , 2 0 1 5

S 1 4 G0 5 9 1 . THE S TATE v . LAMP L.

HUNS T EIN, Ju stic e

.

We gra n te d th e S ta te ’s p e titio n fo r a w rit o f c e rtio ra ri in th is c rim in a l c a se

to d e te rm in e wh e th e r th e Co u rt o f Ap p e a ls p ro p e rly a ffirm e d t h e su p e rio r

c o u rt’s o rd e r d ism issin g a p a rtic u la r c o u n t of th e in d ic tm e n t a n d s u p p r e ssin g

sta te m e n ts m a d e b y th e d e fe n d a n t, Ap p e lle e Jo h n Ja m e s La m p l, b e fo re a sp e c ia l

p u rp o se g ra n d ju ry

. Wh ile we a g re e w i t h t h e su p e rio r c o u rt’s c o nc lu sio n th a t

th e sp e c ia l p u rp o se g ra n d j u r y e x c e e d e d th e sc o pe o f its a u th o rity in its

in v e stig a tio n

, we h old th a t th e re lie f g ra n te d wa s im pro pe r. We th e re fo re

re v e rse

.

In Ma rc h 2 0 1 1

, th e Ch ie f Ju d g e o f th e Cla y to n Ju d ic ia l Circ u it, a t th e

re q u e st of th e Cla y to n Co u n ty D istric t A t t o rn e y

, issu e d a n o rd e r pu rsu a n t to

OCGA § 1 5 -1 2 -1 00 a

u th o riz in g th e im

p a ne lin g o f a sp e c ia l pu rp o se g ra n d ju ry

to in v e stig a te c e rta in a lle g e d p u b lic c orru p tio n

. Th e sp e c ia l p urp o se g ra n d ju ry

issu e d su b p o e n a s to v a rio u s witn e sse s, in c lu d in g La m p l, w h o te stifie d b e fo re it

in Ju n e 2 0 11

. In Ju ly 2 0 1 1

, th e sp e c ia l p urp o se g ra n d ju ry re tu rn e d a 1 6 -c o u n tb ill of in dic tm e n t a g a in st La m p l on c ha rg e s o f c o n sp ira c y in re stra in t o f fre e a n d

o p e n c o m p e titio n, fa lse sta te m e n ts a n d writin g s, a n d p e rju ry

. Th e in d ic t me n t

wa s su b se q u e n tly n o lle pro sse d in t h e a fte rm a th o f th e Co u rt o f Ap p e a ls’

h o ld in g in Ke n e rly v

. S ta te

, 3 1 1 G a

. Ap p

. 1 9 0 (7 1 5 S E2 d 6 8 8 ) (2 0 11 ), th a t th e

a u th ority o f a sp e c ia l p urp o se g ra n d ju ry is lim ite d to c o n d u c tin g in v e stig a tio n s

a n d d o e s n o t in c lu d e th e p o we r to issu e in dic tm e n ts.

S h o r t l y th e re a fte r, in S e p te m b e r 20 1 1

, La m

p l w a s in d ic te d b y a re g u la r

Cla y to n Co u n ty gra n d ju ry o n e ig h t c o u n ts, in c lu d in g o n e p e rju ry c o u n t, sim ila r

to th o se c ha rg e d in th e sp e c ia l p u rp o se g ra n d ju ry ’ s i n i t i a l in d ic tm e nt. Th e

c o n sp ira c y a n d fa lse sta te m e n ts c o u nts a ll p e rta in to a lle g e d c o n d u c t b y La m p l,

in h i s c a p a c i t y a s City Ma n a g e r fo r th e City o f Mo rro w, in c o n n e c tio n with a

City re a l e s t a t e d e v e lo p m e n t p ro je c t k n o wn a s “ O ld e To wn e Mo rro w .” Th e

p e rju ry c o u n t is b a se d o n a n a lle g e d fa lse sta te m e n t La m p l m a de in th e c o u rse

o f h is te stim o n y b e fo re th e sp e c ia l p u rp o se g ra n d ju ry

. 1

Th ro u g h c o u n se l, La m

p l file d a b e v y o f p re tria l m o tio n s, in c lu d in g (1 ) a

Mo tio n to Qu a sh Co u n t VIII (th e p e rju ry co u n t) a n d (2 ) a jo in t Mo tio n to

Dism iss Co un t VIII a n d Mo tio n to S u pp re ss De fe n da n t’s Alle g e d S ta te m e n ts

1 Sp eci fi cal l y at i s su e i s Lam p l’ s s t a t em en t t h at “ Ol d e To wn e M o rro w h as n o

d eb t o n i t . It ’ s al l p ai d fo r.”

2Ma d e to Gra n d Ju ry

. L a m p l a lso m o v e d to c o m

p e l th e p ro d u c tio n o f th e sp e c ia l

p u rp o se g ra n d ju ry ’s im

pa n e lin g o rd e r, wh ic h h a d b e e n file d u n d e r se a l. Th e

tria l c ou rt su b se q u e n tly o rd e re d th a t th e im p a n e lin g o rd e r be u n se a le d a n d a

re d a c te d v e rsio n o f th e o rd e r, o m ittin g th e n a m e s o f th e p a rtic u la r i n d i v i d u a ls

id e n tifie d a s su b

je c ts o f th e in v e stig a tio n , b e re le a se d to th e p a rtie s.

Th e im p a n e lin g o rd e r c a lls fo r th e fo rm a tio n o f “ a sp e c ia l p u rp o se g ra n d

ju ry fo r th e p u rp ose o f in v e stig a tin g pu blic c o r r u p t io n and v a rio us c rim e s

a l l e g e dly c o m m itte d b y c u rre n tly or pre vio u sly e le c te d c o u n ty o ffic ia ls a n d

c o u n ty e m

p lo y e e s.” It is u n d isp u te d th a t, d u rin g t h e tim e pe rio d u n d e r

in v e stig a tio n

, La m

p l wa s a n o ffic ia l with a n d e m

p lo y e e o f th e City o f Mo rro w,

n o t Cla y to n Co un ty

, a n d th a t Old e To wn e M o rro w wa s a p ro je c t u n d e rta k e n b y

th e City

, n o t th e Co u n ty

. It is a lso u n d isp u te d th a t La m p l’s n a m e wa s n o t

a m o n g th o se sp e c ific a lly re fe re n c e d in th e im p a n e lin g o rd e r a s su b

je c ts o f th e

in v e stig a tio n

. 2

Co n te n d in g th a t th e im

p a n e lin g o r d e r d i d n o t a

u t h o r i z e t h e sp e c ia l p u rp ose

g ra n d ju ry to in v e stig a te a lle g e d c o rru p tio n b y City o ffic ia ls, La m p l th e n file d

a P le a in Ba r a n d Mo tio n to Dism iss with P re ju d ic e

, se e k in g dism issa l o f e ith e r

2 Th o u gh t h e n am es hav e b een red act ed fro m th e ord er, t h e t ri al ju d g e ex p res s l y

n o t ed fo r t he reco rd t h at Lam p l ’ s n am e d o es n ot ap p ear i n t h e u n red act ed v ers i o n

.

3th e e n tire in d ic tm e n t o r, in th e a lte rn a tiv e

, Co u n t VI I I

. In th e m o tio n

, La m p l

a sse rte d th a t th e sp e c ia l p u rp o se g ra n d ju ry h a d e x c e e d e d i t s a u th o rity in

in v e s tig a tin g Old T o wn e Mo rro w, a n on -Co u n ty p ro je c t, a n d u n la wfu lly

ta rg e te d La m

p l, a n o n -Co u n ty e m

p lo y e e

. La m

p l a rg u e d fu rth e r th a t th e Cla y to n

Co u n ty Distric t Atto rn e y

, b y k n owin g ly e m p lo y in g th e sp e c ia l p u rp ose g ra n d

ju ry to in v e stig a te m a tte rs o u tsid e th e sc o p e o f t h e i mp a n e lin g o rd e r, h a d

c o m m itte d a “ g ro ss a

b u se o f th e Gra n d Ju ry sy ste m ,” wh ic h ju stifie d d ism issa l

o f th e e n tire in d i c t me n t a s a sa n c tio n

. S h ort o f dism issa l of th e e n tire

in d ic tm e n t, La m

p l u rg e d th e su p e rio r c o u rt to d ism iss th e p e rju ry c o u n t b e c a use

it wa s b a se d u p o n a sta te m e n t m a d e b e fo re a gra nd ju ry th a t wa s u n la wfu lly

c o n v e n e d a n d wh ic h , th us, la c k e d a u th o rity to issu e a n o a th

.

F o llo win g a h e a rin g o n th is a n d c e rta in o f th e o th e r p re tria l m o tio n s, th e

su p e rio r c o urt a gre e d w ith La m p l th a t th e sp e c ia l p u rp o se g ra n d ju ry h a d

e x c e e d e d its a

u th o rity a n d g ra n te d h is re q ue ste d re lie f in p a rt. Re ly in g o n th e

re a so nin g o f Ke n e rly v

. S ta te

, su p ra

, th e c o urt h e ld th a t th e a u th o rity o f a sp e c ia l

p u rp o se g ra nd ju ry “ is lim ite d to th e p u rp o se sta te d wh e n it is im p a n e le d b y th e

Ch ie f Ju d g e of th e S u p e rio r Co u rt” an d th a t, h e re

, th e p la in la n g u a ge o f th e

4im

p a n e lin g o rd e r a

u th o riz e d th e in v e stig a t i o n o f p u b lic c o rru p tio n o n ly

in v o lv in g c o u n ty o f

f i c ia ls a n d e m

p lo y e e s. Th e c o u rt th u s c o n c lu de d th a t th e

sp e c ia l p u rp o se g ra n d ju ry ha d e x c e e d e d its a u th o rity in in v e stig a tin g th e Old e

To wn e Mo rro w pro

je c t a n d in c o m

p e llin g La m

pl’s te stim on y b e fo re it.

Co n se q u e n tly

, t h e c o u rt q u a sh e d a n d d ism isse d th e p e rju ry c o un t a n d

su p p re sse d fro m e v id e nc e La m p l’s te stim o n y b e fo re th e sp e c ia l pu rp o se g ra n d

ju ry a n d a ll e v i d e n c e d e riv e d th e re fro m

. F in d in g th a t th e in d ic tm e n t wa s

re tu rn e d b y a p ro pe rly c o n stitu te d g ra n d ju ry

, h o we v e r, th e c o u rt d e c lin e d to

d ism iss th e re m a in d e r o f th e in d ic tm e n t.

On c ro ss-a p pe a ls b y b o th sid e s, th e Co u rt o f A p p e a ls a ffirm e d

, a g re e in g

t h a t th e sp e c ia l p u rp o se g ra n d ju ry ha d e x c e e d e d its a u th o rity in in v e s t i g a t i n g

Ol d e T o wn e Mo rro w a

n d su b p o e n a in g La m

p l a n d th a t th e p e rju ry c o u n t wa s

th u s p ro p e rly d ism isse d

. S ta te v

. L a m p l, 3 2 5 Ga

. A p p

. 3 4 4 (1 ) (7 5 0 S E2 d 6 8 5 )

(2 0 1 3 ). Re g a rd in g th e su p e rio r c o u rt’s re fu sa l to d ism iss th e re m a in d e r o f th e

in d ic tm e n t, th e a

p p e lla te c o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t e v e n

[a ] ssu m in g th a t th e u n a u th o riz e d in v e stig a tio n o f La m pl

. . . in v o lv e d p ro se c u to ria l m isc o n d u c t wh ic h v io la te d La m p l’ s d u e

p ro c e ss rig h ts, th e d ism issa l o f th e in d ic tm e n t is n ot a p p ro p ria te

b e c a u se La m p l w a s a ffo rd e d a n a d e q ua te re m e d y

, i.e

., th e

su p p re ssio n o f h is sta te m e n ts.

5Id

. a t 3 4 8

. Bo th sid e s th e re a fte r file d p e titio ns fo r c e rtio ra ri in th is Co u rt. We

g ra n te d th e S ta te ’s p e titio n fo r writ o f c e rtio ra ri to d e te rm in e wh e th e r th e Co urt

o f Ap p e a ls e rre d in c on c lu din g th a t th e su p e rio r c o urt p ro p e r ly d ism isse d th e

p e rju ry c o u n t a nd p ro p e rly o rd e re d th e su p p re ssio n o f La m p l’s te stim o n y b e fo re

th e sp e c ia l p u rp o se g ra n d ju ry

. 3

1

. We a g re e with th e c o u rts b e lo w th a t th e sp e c ia l p u rp o s e g r a n d ju ry

e x c e e d e d its a

u t h o r ity in in v e stig a tin g th e Old e To wn e Mo rro w p ro je c t a n d

La m p l’s in v o lv e m e nt in it with o u t an y e ffo rt to c o n n e c t th a t p ro j e c t o r L a m

p l

t o p o te n tia l c rim e s b y c o u n ty o ffic ia ls o r e m p lo y e e s. O CGA § 1 5 -1 2 -1 0 0 ( a )

a u th oriz e s th e im

p a n e lin g o f a sp e c ia l p u r p o s e g ra n d ju ry “ fo r th e pu rp o se o f

in v e stig a tin g a n y a lle g e d v io la tio n o f th e la ws o f th is sta te o r a n y o th e r m a tte r

su b je c t to in ve stig a tio n b y g ra n d ju rie s a s p ro v id e d b y la w.” On c e im p a n e le d

a n d c o nstitu te d in a c c o rd a n c e w i t h th e sta tu te

, a sp e c ia l p u rp o se g ra n d ju ry is

e m p o we re d to c o m

p e l e v id e n c e

, su b p o e n a wi t n e s s e s, a n d in sp e c t p u b lic

d o c u m e n ts “ wh ic h re la te d ire c tly o r in d ire c tly to th e su bje c t o f t h e

i n v e s t i g a t i o n .” Id

. a t (c ). U n le ss o th e rwise sp e c ifie d in th e sta tu te

, th e d u tie s

3 W e d en i ed La m

p l ’s p et i t i o n fo r cert i o rari an d th u s hav e n o o ccas i o n to

ex p res s l y ad dres s wh et h er t h e s up eri o r co u rt erred i n d ecl i n i n g t o d i sm i s s t h e

i n d i ct m en t i n i t s en t i ret y

.

6o f a sp e c ia l p u rp o se g ra n d ju ry “ sh a ll b e c on fin e d to su c h m a tte rs a n d th in g s a s

it is re q u ire d to p e rfo rm by th e Co n stitu tio n a n d la ws o r b y o rd e r o f a n y

su p e rio r c o u rt ju d

g e .” (Em p h a sis a d d e d

. ) OCGA § 1 5 -1 2 -7 1 (a ) (d e lin e a tin g

d u t i e s o f g ra nd ju rie s g e n e ra lly ); se e a lso O CGA § 1 5-1 2 -1 0 2 (e x c e p t a s

o th e rwise p ro v id e d

, la w re la ti v e to g ra n d ju rie s g e n e ra lly a p plie s to sp e c ia l

p u rp o se g ra n d ju rie s). F ro m th e fo re go in g a u th o ritie s, it fo llo ws th a t a sp e c ia l

p u rp o se g ra nd ju ry ha s th e p o we r to c o m p e l te stim o n y an d o th e r e v id e n c e o n ly

in so fa r a s it re la te s “ d ire c tly o r in dire c tly to th e su b je c t of th e in v e stig a tio n ” a s

se t fo rth in th e o rd e r au th oriz in g its im p a n e lin g

.

He re

, th e im

p a n e lin g o rd e r on its fa c e a u th o r iz e s th e in v e stig a tio n o f

p u b lic c o rru p tio n a nd c rim e s a lle g e d ly c o m m itte d b y c u rre n t o r fo rm e r “ c o u n ty

o ffic ia ls a n d c o u n ty e m

p lo y e e s.” Th e re is n o d isp u te th a t La m p l is n e ith e r a

c u rre nt no r fo rm e r c ou n ty o ffic ia l o r e m plo y e e a n d th a t O ld e To wn e M o rro w is

n o t a c o u n ty p ro

je c t. As th e s u p e rio r c o u rt a nd C o urt of Ap p e a ls b o th

c o n c lu d e d

, we

, to o

, h o ld th a t th e sp e c ia l p u rp o se g ra nd ju ry la c k e d th e a u th o rity

to in v e stig a te Old e To wn e Mo rro w o r La m p l’s c o nd u c t with re g a rd to th a t

p ro je c t in d e p e n d e n t o f a n y c o n n e c tio n to p ote n tia l c rim in a l c o n d u c t by c o u n ty

o ffic ia ls o r e m

p lo y e e s.

72

. Ha v in g d e te rm in e d th a t th e Old e T o wn e Mo rro w pro je c t a n d La m

p l’s

in v o lv e m e n t th e re in we re n o t p ro p e r su b je c ts o f th e sp e c ia l p u rp o se gra n d ju ry ’s

in v e stig a tio n

, we m

u st n o w c o n sid e r t h e p ro p rie ty o f th e re lie f gra n te d b y th e

su p e rio r c o u rt. We c o n c lu d e th a t th e su p e rio r c o u rt e rre d in d ism issin g th e

p e rju ry c o u n t a nd in su p p re ssin g La m p l’s g ra n d ju ry te stim o n y a s sa n c tio n s fo r

th e sp e c ia l p u rp o se g ra n d ju ry ’s o v e rre a c h, b e c a u se th e c o n d u c t of th e sp e c ia l

p u rp o se g ra n d ju ry

, th o u g h im p ro pe r, d id n o t c on stitu te a v io la tio n o f La m p l’s

c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts o r o th e rwise rise to th e le v e l n e c e s s a r y to ju stify th e se

sa n c tio n s.

Dismi s s a l o f a n in d ic tm e n t a n d su p p re ssio n o f e v id e n c e a re e x tre m e

sa n c tio n s, u se d o n ly sp a

rin g ly a s re m e d ie s fo r u n la wfu l g o v e rn m e n t c o n d u c t.

S e e W i l c o x v

. S ta te

, 25 0 Ga

. 7 4 5 (4 ) (3 0 1 SE2 d 2 5 1 ) (1 9 8 3 ) (re m e d y fo r

g o v e rn m e n t m isc o n d uc t sh o u ld b e ta ilo re d to in ju ry su ffe re d a n d th u s d ism issa l

o f in dic tm e n t is g e n e ra lly disfa v o re d ); Ro b in so n v

. S ta te

, 2 00 Ga

. Ap p

. 5 1 5

, 5 1 7

(1 ) (4 0 8 S E2 d 8 2 0 ) (1 9 9 1 ) (“ ‘d ism issa l is a n e xtre m e sa n c tio n wh ic h sh o u ld b e

in fre q u e n tly u tiliz e d ’” ); se e a lso Te w v

. S ta te

, 24 6 Ga

. Ap p. 2 7 0, 2 7 1 (1 ) (5 3 9

S E2 d 57 9 ) (2 0 0 0 ) (p h y sic a l pre c e d e n t o n ly ) (“ [t] h e e x c lu sio n o f e v id e n c e is a n

e x tre m e sa n c tio n a

n d o n e n o t fa v o re d in th e la w” ). Un le ss e xp re ssly a u th o riz e d

8b y sta tu te

, su c h sa nc tio n s g e n e ra lly “ c a nn ot be im p o se d a b se n t a v io la tio n o f a

c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t,” Lo p e z v

. S ta te

, 2 7 4 Ga

. 6 6 3

, 6 6 5 (2 ) ( 5 5 8 S E 2 d 6 9 8 )

(2 0 0 2 ); a c c o rd V ille g a s v

. S ta te

, 2 7 3 Ga

. 8 2 4 (6 ) (5 4 6 S E2 d 5 0 4 ) (2 0 01 ); Te w,

2 4 6 G a

. Ap p

. a t 2 7 2 -2 7 3

, o r in th e ra re c a se in w h ic h th e Sta te ’s a c tio n h a s

c o m p ro m ise d “ ‘th e stru c tu ra l p ro te c tio n s o f th e g ra n d ju ry [a n d th u s] re n d e r[e d ]

th e pro c e e din g s fu n d a m e n ta lly u n fa ir.’” Co lo n v

. S ta te

, 2 7 5 Ga

. Ap p

. 7 3, 7 8 (3 )

(6 1 9 S E2 d 77 3 ) (2 0 0 5 ) (q u o tin g Ba n k o f No v a S c o tia v

. Un ite d S ta te s, 4 8 7 U.

S

. 2 5 0 (1 0 8 S Ct 2 3 6 9

, 1 01 LE2 d 2 2 8 ) (1 9 8 8)). S e e , e .g ., S ta te v . Bro wn , 2 9 3

Ga

. 4 9 3 (7 4 8 SE2 d 37 6 ) (2 0 1 3 ) (d ism issa l wa s w a rra n te d wh e re in d ic tm e n t wa s

re tu rn e d in a fo ru m o th e r th a n “ o p e n c o u rt” ); Co lo n

, 27 5 Ga

. Ap p

. a t 7 8

(d ism issa l wo u ld b e wa rra n te d wh e re th e p ro se c u to r re m a in s p re se n t d u rin g th e

g ra n d ju ry ’s d e lib e ra tio n s). W h ile in ra re in sta n c e s th e e x c lu sio n a ry ru le ha s

b e e n a p p lie d a s a re m e d y fo r th e v io la tio n o f a sta tu te

, th is g e ne ra lly h o ld s o n ly

if th e sta tu to ry vio la tio n im p lic a te s u n d e rly in g c on stitu tio n a l in te re sts. S e e

S a n c h e z -Lla m a s v

. Ore g o n

, 5 4 8 U. S

. 3 3 1

, 3 4 8 (1 2 6 S Ct 2 6 6 9

, 1 6 5 LE2 d 5 5 7 )

(2 0 0 6 ) (su p p re ssio n h a s b e e n a p p ro v e d a s a re m e d y fo r sta tu to ry v io la tio n s o n ly

wh e re v io la tio n “im

p lic a te d im

p o rta n t F o u rth an d F ifth Am e n d m e n t in te re sts” ).

As we h e ld in Div isio n 1, La m p l h a s e sta b lish e d a v io la tio n o f th e

9im

p a n e lin g o rd e r, wh ic h fix e d th e sc o p e o f t h e s p e c ia l p u rp o se g ra n d ju ry ’s

in v e stig a tiv e po w e rs. S u c h a vio la tio n

, b y d e fin itio n

, a lso c on stitu te s a v io la tio n

o f th e sta t u t o r y p ro v isio n s d e lim itin g th e sc o pe o f a g ra n d ju ry ’s d utie s. S e e

OCGA § § 1 5 -1 2 -7 1 (a ), 1 5 -1 2 -1 0 2

. Ho we v e r, th e g ra n d ju ry sta tu te s n o wh e re

a u th oriz e e ith e r d i sm issa l o f a n in d ic tm e n t o r su p p re ssio n o f e v id e n c e a s a

re m e d y fo r a g ra n d ju ry ’s o v e rre a c h

. Mo re o ve r, La m p l h a s e sta b lish e d n e ith e r

a v io la tio n o f h is c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts n o r a s t r u ctu ra l d e fe c t in th e g ra n d ju ry

p ro c e ss. Wh ile La m

p l a tte m p ts to e le v a te th e o ve rb re a dth o f th e in v e stig a tio n

in to th e c o n stitu tio n a l re a lm b y c h a ra c te riz in g it a s a d u e p ro c e ss v io la tio n

, we

d o n o t a g re e with th is c h a ra c te riz a tio n

.

La m p l first c o n te n ds th a t th e pro se c u to r p u rp ose fu lly m isu se d th e sp e c ia l

p u rp o se g ra n d ju ry to in v e stig a te m a tte rs sh e k n e w we re o u tsid e th e sc o p e o f th e

im p a n e lin g o rd e r, th e re b y v io la tin g h is d u e p ro c e ss rig h ts. 4 Ev e n if su c h

4 W e n o t e t h at t h e m ajo ri t y o f cas es Lam pl ci t es i n s u p p o rt o f hi s d u e p ro ces s

arg u m en t n o t o n l y in v o l v e far m o re eg reg i o u s fact s bu t al s o are p ro ced u ral l y

i n ap p o s it e, i n t h at t hey

were d eci d ed o n ap p eal p o s t -t ri al

, wh ere t h e rem ed y s o u g ht

was n o t di s m i s s al o f an i n d i ct m en t bu t rat h er rev ers al o f o n e o r m ore c o n v i c t i o n s

. See, e.g

., Ro ch i n v. Cal i fo rn i a, 34 2 U. S. 1 6 5 (7 2 SCt 20 5

, 9 6 LE 1 8 3 ) (1 9 5 2 ) (p o l i ce

co n du ct s u ffi ci en t l y ou t rag eo u s t o req u i re rev ers al

, wh ere p ol i ce u nl awfu l l y en t ered

d efen d an t ’ s h o m e an d

, wh en d efen d an t s wal l o wed p i l l s s u sp ect ed t o b e i l l eg al d ru g s

, fo rci bl y rem o v ed h i m fro m ho m e, t o o k h i m t o h o sp i t al

, an d d i rect ed s t aff t o p u m p h i s

s t om ach t o e x t r act p il ls

, wh i ch were u l t i m at el y u s ed as ev id en ce at t ri al ); By rd v.

Owen

, 2 72 G a. 8 0 7 (1 ) (5 3 6 SE2 d 7 3 6 ) (2 00 0 ) (p ro s ecu ti o n ’ s fa i l u re t o d i s cl o s e

10e g re g io u s ill in te n t we re b o r n e o u t in th e re c o rd

, we d isc e rn n o du e p ro c e ss

v io la tio n

. As th e tria l c o u rt fo u n d

, La m pl’s c urre nt in d ic tm e n t wa s re tu rn e d n o t

b y th e a lle g e d ly m a n ip u la te d sp e c i a l p u rp o se g ra n d ju ry b u t ra th e r b y a n

in d e pe n d e n t

, p r o p e rly c o n stitu te d re g ula r g ra n d ju ry

. E v e n if, a s La m p l

c o n te n d s, so m e of th e e vid e n c e p re se nte d to th e re gu la r g ra n d ju ry e m a n a te d

fro m th e u n la wfu l in v e stig a tio n b y th e sp e c ia l p u rp o se g ra n d ju ry

, th is in itse lf

is o f n o m o m e n t, fo r g ra nd ju rie s, u n lik e pe tit ju rie s, a re a u th o riz e d to c o n sid e r

e v id e n c e with o u t r e g ar d t o its e v e n tu a l a d m issib ility a t tria l. S e e Mitc h e ll v

.

S ta te

, 2 3 9 Ga

. 45 6

, 4 5 9 (3 ) (2 3 8 S E2 d 1 0 0 ) (1 9 7 7 ) (“ ‘[t] h e e v id e n c e w h ic h th e

g ra n d ju ry re ce i v e s i n fin d in g a tru e b ill is n o t su b je c t to in q u iry ’” ); a c c o rd

An d e rso n v

. S ta te

, 25 8 G a

. 7 0 ( 1 1 ) (3 6 5 S E2 d 4 2 1 ) (1 9 8 8 ); se e a lso Un ite d

S t a te s v

. Ca la n d ra

, 4 1 4 U

. S

. 3 38

, 3 4 3 (II) (9 4 S Ct 6 1 3

, 3 8 LE2 d 5 6 1 ) ( 1 9 7 4 )

(g ra n d ju ry ’s “ o p e ra tio n g e n e ra lly is u nre stra in e d b y th e te c h n ic a l p ro c e d u ra l

a n d e v id e n tia ry ru le s g o v e rn in g th e c o n d u c t o f c rim in a l tria ls” ).

i m m u ni t y ag reem en t wi t h it s p ri m ary wi t n es s v i o l at ed d efen d an t’ s d u e p ro ces s ri g h t s

an d ju st i fi ed rev ers al ); Carr v

. St at e, 2 6 7 Ga. 7 0 1

, 71 1 (1 0 ) (4 8 2 SE2 d 3 1 4 ) (1 9 9 7 )

(i nd i cat i n g t h at “ ex t en s i v e p at t ern ” o f i m p ro per an d i n s o m e i n st an ces i l l eg al co n d u ct

b y p ro s ecu to r p ri o r t o an d d u ri ng t ri al m i g h t i n i t s el f j u s ti fy rev ers al o n d u e p ro ces s

g ro u nd s ), o v erru l ed i n part o n o t h er g ro u n d s b y Cl ark v

. S t a t e

, 2 7 1 Ga. 6 (5 ) (5 1 5

SE2 d 1 5 5 ) (1 9 9 9 ); W i l l i a m s v

. St at e, 2 5 8 Ga. 3 05 (1 ) (A) (3 6 9 SE2 d 2 3 2 ) (1 9 8 8 )

(n o t i ng i n d i ct a t h at pro s ecu t o r’ s k n o wi n g u s e o f perju red t es t i m o n y w o u ld co n s t i t u t e

a d u e p ro ces s v i o l at i on ).

11In a d d itio n , La m p l m a k e s m

u c h o f th e fa c t th a t h e wa s, h e c o n te n d s, th e

“ ta rg e t” o f th e sp e c ia l p u rp o se g ra n d ju ry ’s in ve stig a tio n a nd th a t, th e re fo re

, th e

a c t o f su b p o e n a in g h im to te sti f y v io la te d h is c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t a g a in st

c o m p e lle d se lf-in c rim in a tio n. La m pl’s a sse rtio n is m i s pla c e d

. It is w e ll

e sta b lish e d th a t “ th e F ifth Am e n d m e n t d o e s no t p re v en t t h e gra n d ju ry fro m

su b p o e n a in g [a ] p ro sp e c tiv e d e fe n d a n t, o r ta rg e t, to a p pe a r a s a witn e ss.” S a ra

S u n Be al e et al

. , Gra n d Ju ry La w & P ra c tic e

, § 6 :1 2 (2 d e d .); a c c ord Un ite d

S ta te s v. Wa sh in g to n, 4 3 1 U. S

. 1 8 1 (9 7 S Ct 1 8 1 4

, 5 2 LE2 d 23 8) (1 9 77 ) (F ifth

A m e n d m e n t do e s n o t p ro h ib it th e u se o f g ra n d ju ry te stim o n y b y a “ ta rg e t

witn e ss” in a la te r p ro se c u tio n o f th a t witn e ss). Ra th e r, th e F i f t h Am e n d m e n t

o p e ra te s in g ra nd ju ry p ro c e e d in g s to p e rm it w itn e sse s wh o a re su bp oe n a e d to

re fu se to a n swe r sp e c ific q u e stio n s, th e a nswe rs to wh ic h th e witn e ss re a so n a b ly

b e lie v e s wo u ld b e in c rim in a tin g

. S e e U n ite d S t a t e s v

. Ma n d u ja no

, 4 2 5 U. S

.

5 6 4

, 5 7 4 -5 7 5 (9 6 S Ct 1 7 6 8

, 4 8 LE2 d 2 1 2 ) (1 9 7 6 ); se e a lso Ho ffm a n v

. Un ite d

S ta te s, 3 4 1 U. S

. 4 7 9

, 48 6 (7 1 S Ct 8 14

, 95 LE 11 1 8 ) (1 9 5 1 ) (p riv ile ge m a y b e

in v o k e d in g ra n d ju ry p ro c e e d in g s wh e re “ w i t n e s s h a s re a so n a b le c a u se to

a p p re h e n d d a n g e r fro m

a d ire c t a n swe r” ). He re , La m pl n e v e r so u gh t to a sse rt

h is p riv ile g e

, e ith e r p rio r to o r d u rin g h is te stim o n y b e fo re th e sp e c ia l p u rp ose

12g ra n d ju ry

, a

n d th u s h e h a s su ffe re d n o v io la tio n o f h is F ifth Am e n d m e n t rig h ts.

Ou r sta te c on stitu tio n a l p riv ile g e a g a in st se lf-in c rim in a tio n, G a

. Co n st. o f

1 9 8 3, A r t

. I, S e c

. 1

, P a r. XVI, g e n e ra lly fu n c tio ns in th is sa m e m a n n e r. S e e

g e n e ra lly P a

u l S

. Milic h

, Ga

. Ru le s o f E v id e n c e

, § 2 7 :1

, p

. 9 4 6 (2 0 1 4 -2 0 1 5 e d.).

Of re le v a n c e to th e su b

je c t of th e “ ta rg e t witn e ss,” o u r e v id e n c e c o d e pro h ib its

a g ra n d ju ry fro m c o m

p e llin g th e v e ry a

p p e a ra n c e o f a witn e ss

– a s o p po se d to

h is in c rim in a tin g te stim on y in re sp o n se to sp e c ific q u e stio n s

– on ly wh e re th a t

witn e ss h a s b e e n “ c h a rg e d in [a ] c rim in a l p ro c e e d in g with a c rim in a l o ffe n se .”

F o rm e r OCGA § 2 4 -9 -2 0 ( a) 5 ; a c c o rd Sta te v

. B u tle r, 1 7 7 G a

. Ap p

. 5 9 4 (3 4 0

S E2 d 2 1 4 ) (1 9 8 6 ); Je n k in s v

. S ta te

, 6 5 Ga

. Ap p

. 16 (1 4 SE2 d 5 9 4 ) (1 9 4 1 )

(c o n stru in g p r e d e c e sso r to fo rm e r O CGA § 2 4 -9 -2 0 (a )). Th is p ro h ib itio n

a p p lie s o n ly to th ose wh o h a ve b e e n c h a rg e d w ith a n o ffe n se – i.e ., a c c u se d in

a re tu rn e d o r p ro p o se d c h a rg in g d o c u m e nt

– a t th e tim e th e y a re c a lle d to te stify

.

Co m p a re Je n k in s, 6 5 Ga

. A p p

. a t 2 3 (“ th e g ra n d ju ry h a d n o la wfu l rig h t to c a ll

th e a c c use d b e fo re it wh ile c o n sid e rin g th e b ill o f in d ic tm e n t a g a in st h im ” ), with

Bu tle r, 1 7 7 Ga

. Ap p. a t 5 9 5 (g r a n d j u ry wa s a uth o riz e d to su b p o e n a witn e ss

wh o

, th o u g h la te r i nd ic te d

, w a s “ n o t c h a rg e d with

, o r a c c u se d o f, a n y o ffe nse

5 Un d er t he n ew Geo rg i a E v i d en ce Co d e, effect iv e fo r p ro ceed i n g s h el d o n an d

aft er J an uary 1 , 2 0 1 3

, t h is p ro v i s io n i s co di fi ed at OCGA § 2 4-5 -5 0 6 (a).

13a t th e t i me s h e w a s c a lle d ” ). On e wh o h a s n o t b e e n so c h a rg e d m a y b e

c o m p e lle d to a p p e a r b e fo re a g ra n d ju ry

, th o u g h h e re ta in s th e op tio n

, du rin g h is

a p p e a ra n c e

, o f in v o kin g h is p riv ile g e a ga in st se lf-in c rim in a tio n a n d re fu sin g to

te stify re g a

rd in g in c rim in a tin g m a tte rs. Bu tle r, 1 7 7 Ga

. Ap p

. a t 59 4-5 9 5

. 6 Th is

is tru e e v e n if th e witn e ss is a “ ta rg e t” o f th e g ra n d ju ry ’s in v e stig a tio n

. 7

He re

, th e re is n o e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd th a t, a t t h e t i me L a m p l te stifie d

b e fo re th e sp e c ia l p u rp ose gra n d ju ry

, he ha d b ee n a c t ua lly c ha rg e d in a n y

6 W e n o t e th at

, i n J en k in s, t h e Co u rt o f Ap peal s b as ed i t s h o l d i n g o n n o t o n l y

s t at u to ry b u t al s o s t at e co n s t i t u t i o n al g ro un d s

, ci t i n g t h e p red eces s o r t o ou r cu rren t

s t at e co n s t i t u t i on al p ro v i s io n pro h i b i t i n g co m p el l ed s el f-i n cri m i n at i on

. See J en k in s

, 6 5 Ga. Ap p

. at 1 7. T h o u g h t h i s Co urt h as s i n ce en do rs ed t hat co n s t i t u t io n al h o l d i n g

i n d ic t a

, s e e Wi l l iam s v. St at e, 2 0 8 Ga. 7 04 (2 ) (6 9 SE2 d 1 99 ) (1 95 2 ); Brad fo rd v.

M i l ls

, 2 0 8 Ga. 1 9 8 (1 ) (6 6 SE2 d 5 8 ) (1 9 51 ), we d o h arb o r d ou b ts ab o u t t h e

u n d erp i n n i n g s o f th at ho l d i n g, p art i cu l arl y gi v en t h e Jen k i n s co u rt ’ s rel i an ce o n t h e

s i m i l ar it y b et ween o ur s tat e co n s t i t u t i o n al p ro vi si o n an d t h e Fi ft h Am en d m en t

, s ee

J en k in s

, 6 5 Ga. Ap p

. at 1 7, wh i ch

, s i n ce Jen k i n s

, W il l iam s, an d Brad fo rd were

d eci d ed

, h as b een d efi n i t i v el y co n s t ru ed b y t he U.S. Su p rem e Co u rt as p ro h i b i t i n g

o n l y co m p el led i n cri m in at i n g t es t i m o n y rat h er t h an co m p el l ed ap pearan ce. See

W as h i n g t o n, 4 3 1 U. S. at 18 8

. W e n eed n ot h ere, h o w e v e r

, d e c i d e wh et h er t h e

p ro s cri p t i o n s o f fo rm er O CGA § 2 4 -9 -2 0 (a) are co t erm i n o u s wi t h o r an ex p an s i o n

o f o ur s t at e co ns t i tu t i o n al p ro t ect i o n s ag ai n s t s el f-i ncri m i n at i o n b ecau s e, as we n o t e

i n fra, Lam

pl h as fai l ed t o es t ab l i s h ev en a s t at u t o ry v i o l at i on

. W e th erefo re as s u m e

fo r p res en t p u rp o ses th at th e st at e co n s t i t u t io n al pri v i l eg e, l i k e t he s t at u te, pro h i b i t s

n o t o n l y co m

p el led tes ti m o n y b u t al s o th e co m p el l ed ap p earan ce o f a w i t nes s wh o h as

b een ch arg ed i n t h e p ro ceed i ng at h an d

.

7 To t he ex t en t co m

m en t at o rs h av e co n s t ru ed Jen k i n s t o p ro h i b i t t h e

s u b p oen ai n g o f t arg e t w i t n es s es

, we d i s ag ree wi th t h is read i n g o f J en k i n s

. See

W a yn e R

. L a F a v e et al

., 3 Cri m

. Pro c. § 8 .1 0 (c), n .5 1 (3 d ed

. ); Beal e, Gran d J u ry

Law an d Pract ice, § 6 .1 2

, n .3 5

.

14in d ic tm e n t o r p re se n tm e n t. 8 Ac c o rd in g ly

, wh ile th e sp e c ia l p u rp ose g ra n d ju ry

la c k e d p ro p e r a

u th o rity to su b p o e n a

La m p l, th e a c t o f d o in g so d id n o t v io la te

La mp l’s p riv ile g e a g a in st c o m p e lle d se lf-in c rim in a tio n in an y o f its

c o n stitu tio n a l o r sta tu to ry in c a rn a tio n s.

F o r th e f o r e g o in g re a so n s, th e su p e rio r c o u rt e rre d in d ism issin g Co u n t

VIII a n d in su p p re ssin g L a m p l’s te stim o n y b e fo re th e sp e c ia l pu rp o se g ra n d ju ry

a s sa n c tio n s to re m e dy th e o v e rb re a d th o f th e sp e c i a l p u rp o se g ra n d ju ry ’s

in v e stig a tio n . Ac c o rd in gly , we re v e rse

. 9

Ju d g m e n t re ve rse d . All th e Ju stic e s c o n c u r.

8 On t h i s p o i n t

, Lam

p l o ffers o n l y i n n u en d o

, h i gh l i gh t i n g th e fact t h at t h e o at h

ad m i n is t ered b efo re h is t es t i m o n y m ad e referen ce t o a “ p res en t m en t ” an d t h e cl o s e

p ro x im it y i n t i m e (o n e week ) b et ween L am p l ’ s t es t i m o n y an d t h e r e t u rn o f t h e

(u l t i m at el y n ol l e pro ss ed ) s p eci al p u rp o s e g ran d ju ry in d ict m en t

. In s h o rt

, Lam pl

o ffers n o ev id en ce t h at he h ad i n fact b een n am ed i n an y ch arg i n g d o cu m en t at t h e

t i m e h e was s u b po en aed t o ap p ear b efo re t h e s p eci al p urp o s e g ran d ju ry

.

9 In s o do i n g

, we ex p res s no o p i n i o n as t o t h e s ub s t an t i v e v iab i l i t y o f t h e p erju ry

co u nt

, an i s s u e t h at t h e t ri al co u rt m ay hav e o ccas i on t o en t ert ai n o n r e m a n d

. See

OCGA § 1 6

- 1 0

- 7 0 ( a ) (d efi n i n g o ffen s e o f p erju ry ); St at e v

. Bart el

, 2 2 3 Ga. Ap p.

6 9 6

, 6 96 -6 9 7 (4 7 9 SE2 d 4 ) (1 9 9 6 ) (p erju ry p ro s ecu ti o n au t h o ri zed as t o fal s e g ran d

ju ry t es t i m o n y

, “ s o l on g as t he g ran d ju ry i s l awfu l l y c o n d u ct in g an i n v es t i g at i o n

au t h o ri zed b y

s t at e l aw”); Cro w v

. St at e, 5 5 G a. Ap p

. 2 88

, 28 9 (1 9 0 SE 6 5 ) (1 9 3 7 )

(p erju ry can b e es t ab l i s h ed o n ly i f fal s e tes t i m o n y g i v en befo re a “ ‘ l eg al l y co ns t i t u t ed

co u rt ’ ”).

15