Court Opinion

ID: 9673502
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:13:14.204419+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:38:21.451114
License: Public Domain

TOMLJANOVICH; Justice
(dissenting):
I respectfully dissent. Under the facts of this case, I believe the district court’s dismissal of the two second-degree murder counts from the multi-count indictment that also charged the defendant with two counts of first-degree murder prejudiced the substantial rights of the defendant. Because the error interfered with the integrity of the grand jury, I would reverse the convictions.
The grand jury has a significant and historic role in American justice. The basis of its function “was not only to examine into the commission of crimes, but to stand between the prosecutor and the accused * ⅜ * .” Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 59, 26 S.Ct. 370, 373, 50 L.Ed. 652 (1906).
A prosecutor seeking to prosecute a suspect on a charge of first-degree murder must submit the matter to the grand jury. Minn. R.Crim. P. 17.01. Acting pursuant to Minn. R.Crim. P. 18.07, the grand jury, in the independent exercise of its traditional role, concluded there was probable cause to charge the defendant with two counts of first-degree murder as well as with two counts of the lesser offense of second-degree murder.
The majority assumes for purposes of argument that it was error for the district court to dismiss the two second-degree murder counts, concluding that if there was error it was not prejudicial.
I do not agree. The district court exceeded its authority in dismissing the two counts of second-degree murder without a sufficient fact basis. The dismissal interfered with the independence of the grand jury. In the absence of a grand jury indictment it would be within the discretion of the prosecutor to dismiss the charge without leave of the court. Minn. R.Crim. P. 30.01.
However, a somewhat different standard has developed in those cases commencing upon the return of an indictment by the independently functioning grand jury. In that event, the grand jury has concluded that there exists probable cause that an offense has been committed and that the defendant committed it. The prosecutor then must make a careful analysis based upon his independent evaluation of the circumstances and the experience of his office. His decision to dismiss the indictment is therefore to be founded upon that careful exercise of discretion with due regard for the interests of the public as well as those of the defendant. The obvious intent of that portion of Rule 30.01, ⅜ * * requiring an adequate record and judicial scrutiny prior to dismissal with leave of the court is merely to facilitate the court’s satisfaction that the prosecutor has neither summarily ignored nor preempted the considered decision of the grand jury without a sufficient factual basis.
State v. Aubol, 309 Minn. 323, 329, 244 N.W.2d 636, 640 (1976) (citations omitted).
*431In this case it appears that the prosecutor sought to dismiss simply because he wished to prosecute the case as two first-degree murders and gained a tactical advantage by dismissal of the two second-degree murder counts included in the indictment. The jury was informed at the outset of the trial that the grand jury had indicted the defendant only on two counts of first-degree murder. In the opening statement the defense was not at liberty to point out that the grand jury also had indicted on two counts of second-degree murder. We previously have expressed our concern that the grand jury not be seen as a tool of the prosecutor. “There is a tendency for prosecutors to view the grand jury as a tool for their convenience.” State v. Johnson, 441 N.W.2d 460, 462 (Minn.1989). It appears that in this case there was not a careful analysis of the circumstances in deciding to seek dismissal, but simply a conclusion that it would be easier to prosecute the case without the jury having been informed that the grand jury also had returned second-degree murder indictments. That is not an adequate reason for dismissal.
As we stated in Johnson:
The grand jury is not intended to be a tool of the prosecution or the defense. It is an arm of the judiciary and, as such, it shall be used in a fair, impartial and independent manner or not at all.
441 N.W.2d at 466.
I cannot agree with the majority that an after-the-fact submission to the jury of two forms of second-degree murder cured the error.
I would reverse.