Opinion ID: 2827481
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: ¶1 In Utah’s criminal justice system, grand jury indictments are rare. The vast majority of felony cases are prosecuted by information—that is, by a prosecutor filing charges directly in STATE v. HON. CHRISTIANSEN Opinion of the Court district court. The historical role of the grand jury is now generally played by the district court itself, which holds preliminary hearings to review the state’s evidence and reject unjustified prosecutions. ¶2 But prosecution by information may not be ideal in all circumstances. Recognizing this, the legislature has established procedures for grand jury indictment as an alternative means of prosecution. It has not, however, given the state total discretion to prosecute by whatever means it wishes. Rather, a prosecutor wishing to prosecute by indictment must first persuade a special panel of five district judges that there is good cause to summon a grand jury. If the panel summons a grand jury, the prosecutor may then ask the jurors to return an indictment and charge the defendant without a preliminary hearing. ¶3 In the case before us, the state asked the panel to summon a grand jury, but the panel refused. The state now petitions this court for an extraordinary writ, claiming that the panel abused its discretion by denying the state’s request. The panel responds that its decisions are not subject to review by extraordinary writ and that the state’s petition must therefore be denied. ¶4 We agree with the state: our power to issue extraordinary writs does give us jurisdiction to review the panel’s decisions. But when we review the panel’s decision in this case, we find the state’s allegations to be without merit. The panel did not abuse its discretion, and we therefore deny the state’s petition for extraordinary relief. BACKGROUND 1 ¶5 In October 2013, the Salt Lake County District Attorney (the state) filed a certification and statement of facts requesting a grand jury. A few days later, the grand jury panel held a hearing to consider the state’s request. The panel found that the state had not established good cause to summon a grand jury, and the state’s request was accordingly denied. ¶6 In December 2013, the state filed a petition for extraordinary relief in this court. After preliminary briefing and oral argument to address various confidentiality issues, we asked the 1 By law, the panel’s hearings are secret. UTAH CODE § 77-10a- 2(1)(a). This summary of facts includes only the information about the hearings that has been made public in order to facilitate litigation; it does not include the facts the state presented to the grand jury panel, the identity of the party or parties whom the state sought to indict, or the reasons the panel gave for its decision. 2 Cite as: 2015 UT 74 Opinion of the Court parties to present their arguments on the merits, instructing them to address three legal questions: (1) Does the court have jurisdiction under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 65B(d) to review the Panel’s “good cause” determination made pursuant to Utah Code section 77-10a-2(3)? (2) Assuming the court has jurisdiction to consider the petition, what is the proper standard of review applicable to the panel’s “good cause” determinations? (3) What is the proper scope and definition of “good cause” as used in Utah Code section 77-10a-2(3)? In addressing this question, the parties shall consider how the contours of “good cause” are informed by the proper constitutional role of the panel in criminal investigations, given its nature as a creature of statute vested by the legislature with authority?