Opinion ID: 1245272
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: grand jury issue

Text: We discuss first the question raised by the parties concerning the number of grand jurors who indicted defendant. While this case was awaiting oral argument in this court, the Court of Appeals, sitting in banc, decided Goodwin v. State of Oregon, 116 Or.App. 279, 840 P.2d 1372 (1992). In Goodwin, a post-conviction relief case, a six-member majority of the Court of Appeals held that, when a person is indicted for a crime, Article VII (Amended), section 5(2), of the Oregon Constitution, [2] mandates that seven grand jurors hear and consider all of the evidence presented before a valid indictment can be found. 116 OrApp at 283, 840 P.2d 1372. The majority in Goodwin concluded that, [b]ecause only six grand jurors heard the evidence in petitioner's case, he was entitled to dismissal of the indictment. Id. at 284, 840 P.2d 1372. Following the Goodwin decision, the parties in this case discovered that only six grand jurors were in attendance when the grand jury indicted defendant on the two counts of aggravated murder at issue here. [3] Thus, the rationale of the Goodwin decisionif that decision was correct would call for dismissal of the indictment in the present case. Consequently, the parties filed a joint motion asking this court to determine that issue. We conclude, however, that we cannot reach the issue in this case, because the issue was not raised in a timely manner. As noted, defendant previously was tried and convicted under the present indictment. This appeal arises out of his conviction following retrial. At no time before the briefing in the present appeal did defendant raise any challenge concerning the qualifications of the grand jury that indicted him. We think that such a challenge now comes much too late. Procedures for attacking the sufficiency of an indictment are provided in ORS chapter 135. They are: (1) a motion to set aside an indictment, ORS 135.510, and (2) a demurrer, ORS 135.610. With two exceptions concerning a demurrer that are not pertinent to our inquiry in this case, either a motion to set aside an indictment or a demurrer must be filed before trial. See ORS 135.520 (motion to set aside indictment shall be made and heard at the time of the arraignment or within 10 days thereafter, unless for good cause the court allows additional time); ORS 135.610 (demurrer shall be entered either at the time of the arraignment or at such other time as may be allowed to the defendant for that purpose). An assertion that fewer than the requisite number of grand jurors participated in handing down an indictment is specifically identified as a ground for a motion to set aside an indictment. ORS 135.510(1)(a) provides: (1) The indictment shall be set aside by the court upon the motion of the defendant in either of the following cases: (a) When it is not found, indorsed and presented as prescribed in ORS 132.360, 132.400 to 132.430 and 132.580. (Emphasis supplied.) ORS 132.360 provides: A grand jury may indict or present facts to the court for instruction as provided in ORS 132.370, with the concurrence of five of its members, if at least five jurors voting for indictment or presentment heard all the testimony relating to the person indicted or facts presented. It is true that the foregoing statutes do not speak to a challenge based on a constitutionally, rather than a statutorily, inadequate number of grand jurors. However, we think that the parallel between the latter kind of contention and the former is so complete that ORS 135.510(1)(a) should be deemed to apply equally to both kinds of challenges. It is obvious that defendant's challenge to the grand jury vote in this case came far later (by many years) than the time in which it had to be brought under ORS 135.510(1)(a) and 135.520. Any right that defendant may have had to have the indictment set asideand we express no opinion on that questionhad to be exercised in a timely manner under those statutes. Defendant's failure to make a timely motion to set aside the indictment precludes this court from considering the grand jury issue further. See ORS 135.520 (if a motion to set aside the indictment is not made within the time required, the defendant is precluded from afterwards taking the objections to the indictment). Therefore, we proceed to a review of defendant's appeal on the merits.