Opinion ID: 1060523
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Dismissal of the Murder Indictments

Text: Defendant Carruthers first contends that the indictments should have been dismissed because they were based upon what he terms the admittedly questionable testimony of Alfredo Shaw before the grand jury. Carruthers also argues that he was entitled to a transcript of the grand jury proceedings. We disagree. It has long been the rule in this State that the sufficiency and legality of the evidence considered by the grand jury is not subject to judicial review. [10] Where an indictment is valid on its face, it is sufficient to require a trial of the charge on the merits to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused, regardless of the sufficiency or legality of the evidence considered by the grand jury. [11] As the United States Supreme Court recognized in Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 361, 76 S.Ct. 406, 408, 100 L.Ed. 397 (1956): If indictments were to be held open to challenge on the ground that there was inadequate or incompetent evidence before the grand jury, the resulting delay would be great indeed. The results of such a rule would be that before trial on the merits a defendant could always insist on a kind of preliminary trial to determine the competency and adequacy of the evidence before the grand jury. See also Burton, 214 Tenn. at 16, 377 S.W.2d at 903 (quoting Costello with approval). We decline to adopt such a rule. Carruthers' claim that the indictments must be dismissed because Alfredo Shaw's testimony before the grand jury was not trustworthy is without merit. [12] This matter is not subject to judicial review. Also without merit is Carruthers' claim that he was entitled to a transcript of the grand jury proceedings. With certain limited exceptions that do not apply in this case general law mandates that grand jury proceedings remain secret. See Tenn. R.Crim. P. 6(k)(1) (stating that such proceedings are secret); Tenn. R.Crim. P. 6(k)(2) (allowing disclosure of grand jury proceedings to ascertain if the testimony of a witness before the grand jury is consistent with the testimony of the witness at trial and allowing disclosure of grand jury testimony of any witness charged with perjury); Tenn. R.Crim. P. 16(a)(3) (requiring the state to provide as discovery to the defendant any recorded testimony of the defendant before a grand jury which relates to the offense charged); cf. Tiller v. State, 600 S.W.2d 709, 712 (Tenn.1980) (discussing the secrecy requirement that applies to grand jury proceedings). [13]