NM Stat § 31-6-9 (2021)
2021 New Mexico Statutes|Chapter 31 - Criminal Procedure|Article 6 - Grand Jury|Section 31-6-9 - Charge to grand jury.

The district judge convening a grand jury shall charge it with its duties and direct it as to any special inquiry into violations of law that he wishes it to make. History: 1953 Comp., § 41-5-9, enacted by Laws 1969, ch. 276, § 9; 1993, ch. 71, § 1. ANNOTATIONSRepeals. — Laws 1969, ch. 276, § 14, repealed former 41-5-9, 1953 Comp., relating to the oath administered to the foreman of the grand jury. The 1993 amendment, effective June 18, 1993, rewrote this section to the extent that a detailed comparison is impracticable. Limiting grand jury investigation. — The district court does not possess discretion to limit the investigative prerogative of the grand jury. Once convened for a specific inquiry, a grand jury should be obliged likewise to inquire into other offenses of which it may have knowledge. State ex rel. Deschamps v. Kase, 1992-NMSC-040, 114 N.M. 38, 834 P.2d 415. District courts may limit grand jury investigations to specific incidents identified in the petition. Therefore petition to convene a grand jury must contain sufficient information to enable the court to determine whether the petitioners seek a legitimate inquiry into alleged criminal conduct or malfeasance of a public official or whether petitioners seek nothing more than a witch hunt. District Court v. McKenna, 1994-NMSC-102, 118 N.M. 402, 881 P.2d 1387, cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1018, 115 S. Ct. 1361, 131 L. Ed. 2d 218. Indictment for perjury committed before grand jury. — A grand jury may properly indict a defendant for perjury on the basis of defendant's false testimony before the grand jury since such an indictment is consistent with the juror's duty to inquire into public offenses. State v. Watkins, 1979-NMCA-003, 92 N.M. 470, 590 P.2d 169. Distinction between grand and petit juries. — There was a wide distinction between a grand and a petit jury as to their functions and methods of procedure. The action of the former was simply preliminary; it was an inquiry by the grand inquest as to whether there was such probability for the statements made before them, which were usually ex parte, of the guilt of a certain person, that he ought to be placed on trial. Territory v. Young, 1881-NMSC-007, 2 N.M. 93. Duty to share knowledge of offenses committed with fellow jurors. — It was not expected that in every instance each grand juror be free from all previous knowledge of the cases, or even of the precise circumstances of the cases coming before them for official action; on the contrary, it was stated in the statute as to their powers and duties, which was to be read to every grand jury as a part of the charge, that if a member knew of an offense committed, he was to declare the same to his fellow jurors. Territory v. Young, 1881-NMSC-007, 2 N.M. 93. Law reviews. — For article, "Prisoners Are People," see 10 Nat. Resources J. 869 (1970). Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 38 Am. Jur. 2d Grand Jury § 18. Matters within investigating powers of grand jury, 22 A.L.R. 1356, 106 A.L.R. 1383, 120 A.L.R. 437. Erroneous instructions by court to grand jury as grounds for quashing indictment, 105 A.L.R. 575. Contemporaneous existence or functioning of two or more grand juries, 121 A.L.R. 814. Individual's right to present complaint or evidence of criminal offense, 24 A.L.R.4th 316. 38A C.J.S. Grand Juries §§ 74, 75.