Opinion ID: 1679561
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Validity of the Grand Jury Indictment

Text: Defendant also questions, in a Motion to Quash the Indictments, the validity of those indictments themselves, alleging that there was insufficient evidence to indict. It is well settled that a grand jury indictment cannot be attacked on the basis of insufficient evidence that the crime has been committed. State v. Edgecombe, 275 So.2d 740 (La.1973). For this reason, the judge correctly denied the motion to compel the testimony of the foreman of the grand jury and the motion for an in camera inspection which were in aid of defendant's attack on the sufficiency of the evidence presented to the grand jury. The lower court ruling that the district attorney would not be subpoenaed to testify regarding any duty he felt to advise the grand jury not to indict for lack of evidence was also proper. Defendants failed to prove the existence of such a standard or its applicability to a Louisiana district attorney. Defendants also contend that the instant indictments are invalid because the grand jury did not receive a written charge required by C.Cr.P. art. 482, which provides in part: After the oath is administered to the members of the grand jury, the judge shall charge them orally in open court upon their duties, rights and powers. Upon completion of the charge the judge shall give the grand jury a written copy of the charge. Defendants' position is that the grand jury was empaneled in April and orally charged at that time, but the jury was not charged when it was recalled in August. This Court has held, in State v. Starr, 52 La.Ann. 610, 26 So. 998 (1900), that the fact that the minutes of the court did not reflect that the grand jury which returned the indictment was charged, was not reversible error. In light of this jurisprudence and the fact that the instant grand jury was charged at least once in April, we hold that the members were properly apprised of their rights, duties and powers, and the lack of a written charge when the jury was recalled does not affect the validity of the indictments at issue. These indictments may therefore supply the probable cause for the arrests of the defendants.