Court Opinion

ID: 9789699
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:40:09.994656+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:34:07.775311
License: Public Domain

*320ON DENIAL OF PETITION FOR REHEARING
BISTLINE, Justice,
dissenting.
The Court denies the petition for a rehearing without any comment. The supporting brief of the appellant’s is more deserving. Courteously and politely written, it opens with the accurate observation that this case, one of first impression, has presented this Court with a unique opportunity to guide the bench and bar for years to come through the intricacies of the grand jury process, looking toward a properly balanced interposition of the judiciary between the prosecuting authorities and the citizenry. This the appellant pursues not just for the defendant Edmonson. It is therein said, and rightfully so, that this Court has eschewed the opportunity.
A strong point is made that if the Court continues in its ruling that the county prosecutors are blessed with unfettered charging discretion, then, at the least in this case Mr. Edmonson should be allowed a preliminary hearing. This is an entirely reasonable stance; common sense and common courtesy on the part of the Court should require close consideration before brushing the request aside. The opinion for the Court, as it presently stands tells the reader at p. 233, 743 P.2d at 462 that Edmonson’s appeal is doomed because of his “failure to request a preliminary hearing ...,” which is said to be “dispositive of this case.” In the same paragraph the statement is made that a “substantive difference in the indictment and information procedures is the right to a preliminary hearing when an information is used.” That is true, and it is well and good. It has been so forever. As appellant has pointed out in the supporting brief, the Court’s opinion is stating that if an indicted defendant does not request a preliminary hearing, he has waived that right. But a defendant cannot waive a right unless he in the first place had that right.
Once again I may be remiss in my reading abilities, because I am unable to find in the code of criminal procedure or in the Court’s own promulgated Idaho Criminal Rules any language which states that an indicted accused must request a preliminary in order to obtain one. Nor, is there any Idaho case-law so holding. And, entirely to the contrary, Criminal Rule 5 provides that when a defendant accused by complaint of a felony is taken before a magistrate for his initial appearance, along with other advice which he must be given, he shall be advised of “His right to a preliminary hearing ... the nature of a preliminary hearing, and the effect of a waiver thereof.” Rule 5(f)(5). The defendant does not have to request a preliminary hearing. He will be given a preliminary hearing unless he elects to waive it. It is not a matter treated lightly by defense counsel, and by the magistrates who will ordinarily ascertain for certain if a defendant is making a knowing and intelligent waiver.
How, then, is it that the Court’s opinion concedes that there is in an indicted defendant a right to a preliminary hearing, but he will receive it if only he thinks to make the request. How, in the name of common sense can such a person be held to a procedural requirement which has never found its way into a statute or into a court rule or by case precedent?
Judge Bengston in his considered decisions did make the observation that the defendants Hawkins and Freeland did request of the court an order granting a post-indictment preliminary hearing. Truly enough, such requests were made in those two cases. But, what those eases do not hold is that failure to make a request amounts to a waiver. Such a holding is yet to come from either of the Supreme Courts of those two states. What comes out of Hawkins and Freeland is simply that motions were made to obtain a right which was being asserted — the right of an indicted defendant to have a preliminary hearing, and thus be on an equal footing with defendants who are charged by a felony complaint. When the motion was made in Freeland, counsel had before them two earlier companion Oregon cases, State v. Clark, 291 Or. 231, 630 P.2d 810 (1981), and State v. Hector Victor Edmonson, 291 Or. 251, 630 P.2d 822 (1981). The indicted de*321fendant in State v. Clark, 291 Or. 231, 630 P.2d 810 (1981) did not move for an order granting him in a preliminary hearing, but moved for a dismissal based on the “failure to accord defendant a preliminary hearing after his indictment ...” 630 P.2d at p. 812 — exactly like the situation before us. In that case there had been a denial of defendant’s request for a preliminary hearing after indictment. 630 P.2d at 823. Both Clark and Edmonson were authored by Justice Linde who, with his colleagues, saw the same issue squarely before them in both cases, although an actual request for preliminary hearing was not made in Clark. Clark was the lead opinion of the two and fully discussed the issue. Edmonson merely applied Clark. The indicted defendants in both of those cases relied on Hawkins, of which counsel had gained knowledge.
Defendant’s principal argument, however, was predicated on Hawkins v. Superior Court, 22 Cal.3d 584, 150 Cal. Rptr. 435, 586 P.2d 916 (1978), a decision based entirely on state rather than federal grounds. In any event, he could not have excluded issues of state law by pitching his attack on 14th amendment grounds. Cf. State v. Spada, 286 Or. 305, 594 P.2d 815 (1979). The case was argued together with State v. Edmonson, also decided today, which presented the same issue of equal rights, based in part on art. I, § 20, and there can be no claim that examination of that issue under the Oregon Constitution before the 14th amendment took respondent by surprise.
Clark, 630 P.2d at p. 812, f.n. 1.
The Hawkins decision held that indicted defendants must be afforded preliminary hearings equally with defendants charged by an information in order to meet the equality guarantee of California’s constitution. Before turning to the Hawkins court’s analysis, therefore, it is necessary to review the comparable Oregon guarantee.
Clark, 630 P.2d at p. 814.
The Oregon Supreme Court at length reviewed its prior case law which involved art. I, Sec. 20 of the Oregon Constitution,1 and saw that the issue presented was within the scope of the Oregon constitutional provision, and agreed with the California court that:
There is no question that the opportunity of a preliminary hearing is a “privilege” within the meaning of the constitutional guarantee, and potentially one of great practical importance. The grant or denial of this privilege is controlled by the state’s choice, acting through the district attorney, to proceed by indictment or by information.
Us * * * * *
In the present case, we agree with the California court in Hawkins that the opportunity of a preliminary hearing, with the procedural rights described above, offers important advantages over prosecution upon an indictment without a preliminary hearing.
But, the Oregon Court continued to adhere to an earlier opinion, City of Klamath Falls v. Winters, 289 Or. 757, 619 P.2d 217 (1980), which case was not at all in point on the issue presented in Clark, and in Edmonson, and in this case:
We do not follow the Hawkins court to the conclusion, however, that this difference between two available procedures necessarily represents a denial of equal protection of the laws, regardless of showing which defendants receive one or the other procedure. Hawkins reached this conclusion in “classification” terms, by defining as two classes those who are indicted and those who are charged by information. But we think this is an example of the “circular” use of the concept of “class” mentioned above. The distinction to be tested is the use or nonuse of preliminary hearings. The “classes” said to fail the test of equal protection are the “class” of those defendants who receive prelimi*322nary hearings (because charged by information) and the “class” of those who do not (because indicted). But these defendants do not exist as categories or as classes with distinguishing characteristics before and apart from a prosecutor’s decision how to charge one, or some, or all defendants. Aside from the manner in which the decision is made, see City of Klamath Falls, supra, 289 Or. at 784-785, 619 P.2d 217 (Lent, J., dissenting), defendants charged under either procedure are “classes” only as an effect of the dual procedural scheme itself. As in City of Klamath Falls, supra, “these defendants [i.e. those who do not receive a preliminary hearing] are not denied such a ‘privilege’ as individual persons, but only because the are members of a ‘class’ of persons who are prosecuted [by indictment] as distinct from persons prosecuted [on an information].” 289 Or. at 776, 619 P.2d 217.
Each of the two procedures, however, is expressly authorized by the constitution itself. Properly administered, each satisfies the fourteenth amendment____ As stated above, the administration of laws and procedures provided in the constitution nonetheless must meet other constitutional standards, but the mere coexistence of the two procedures so as to limit preliminary hearings to one of them does not constitute forbidden class legislation. Without a showing that the administration of Or. Const, art. VII, § 5 and ORS 135.070-135.185 in fact denied defendant individually, or a class to which be [sic] belongs, the equal privilege of a preliminary hearing with other citizens of the state similarly situated, the circuit court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss the indictment.
******
However, as with respect to his motion to dismiss the indictment for lack of a preliminary hearing, defendant has made no effort to show that the handling of his case violated those principles. Rather, he attacks the range of the prosecutor’s discretion without previously stated standards as a denial of equal protection on its face. We do not believe equal protection goes so far as to require previously stated standards as long as no discriminatory practice or illegitimate motive is shown and the use of discretion has a defensible explanation.
******

The Court of Appeals found that there was such an explanation in this case.

The evidence showed that a number of persons were involved in the criminal activities for which defendant was indicted. Several of those individuals pleaded guilty to one or two charges and were granted immunity from further prosecution in exchange for their testimony against defendant before the grand jury and at his several trials. The prosecutor in charge of the cases testified that he treated defendant differently because the investigation showed that defendant was the instigator of many of the crimes and had demonstrated that he was a greater threat to society than the other individuals.
47 Or.App. [389] at 392, 615 P.2d 1043. We agree with the Court of Appeals that it was not error to reject the motion to dismiss the indictment.
Clark, 630 P.2d at pp. 817-819 (emphasis added).
Two words, “Properly administered,” plus differently worded provisions of the California and Oregon constitutions, explain how the Oregon court could embrace much of what was written in Hawkins, and yet reach an opposite result.
The quality of being “properly administered” was found fatally missing two years later in Freeland, a graceful flip-flop from Clark, and bringing into Oregon criminal procedure the right of an indicted defendant to a preliminary hearing. Even dissenting Justice Jones opined that “the goal of the majority opinion is desirable.” Freeland, 667 P.2d at p. 21.
The Supreme Court agreed with the trial court’s holding that where the choice between prosecution by information — with *323right of preliminary hearing — or by indictment:
is made primarily at the discretion of the prosecution [sic, prosecutor] who makes his decision upon ‘logistical’ and ‘tactical’ criteria, the choice of procedure is administered purely haphazardly or otherwise on terms that have no satisfactory explanation under art. I, Sec. 20____
and, "... defendant has been denied an equal privilege and equal protection ...” 667 P.2d at 519.
Whereas the trial court had dismissed the indictment for failure to accord the indicted defendant a preliminary hearing, the Supreme Court did not, as a generality, approve of the dismissal of the indictment as a remedy for not according a preliminary hearing:
There remains the question whether the court’s order dismissing the indictment was a correct remedy for what the court found to be an unconstitutional denial of a preliminary hearing.
Defendant does not claim that there is any flaw in the indictment or that it was not found by proper grand jury procedure. What is challenged here on grounds of constitutionally unequal administration is not that the prosecution obtained an indictment but that it refused a preliminary hearing. The two steps are not intrinsically incompatible. See, Model Code of Pre-Arraignment Procedure, supra n. 3. What defendant requested, first in the district court and then in the circuit court, was a preliminary hearing. He moved for dismissal of the indictment only as an alternative in case the preliminary hearing was not provided. The circuit court first signed an order on September 28,1981 “that the state must schedule and hold a preliminary hearing within thirty (30) days of this date or the indictment will be dismissed.” Upon a further motion of the defendant stating that by October 28, 1981, no preliminary hearing had been held, the court ordered the indictment dismissed.
There was considerable discussion of this procedure between the prosecutor and the circuit court. As the indictment itself was not challenged, the correct procedure, rather than dismissing the indictment, would have been to stay further proceedings under it until the state proceeded with a preliminary hearing or the defendant waived such a hearing. Dismissal then would be governed by the standards of OES 135.747 and 135.750. In the circuit court, the prosecutor expressly stated at the beginning of the hearing that dismissal would be proper if the court agreed with defendant’s position and the state decided not to proceed with a preliminary hearing. The court followed the suggestion of the parties, and the question was not pursued on appeal. It therefore is not before us for decision.
667 P.2d at p. 520. (Emphasis added).
Unlike Freeland, where the Supreme Court noted that there were no claims of error or impropriety in the proceedings leading to the indictment, the record here is replete with such. This, of course, was well displayed in my earlier opinion, and the claims defended against in the majority opinion by agreeing that there were violations of statutory provisions, and other improprieties — but nothing to get excited about.
That ground was well-plowed, and won’t now be disked. It is only fitting to mention the dismay caused to able counsel who, notwithstanding, nicely tell it like it is:
“Prosecutor Hamlett has been casually censured by Judge Bengtson and by this Court for his improprieties before the Grand Jury, yet heads have simply turned away. This Court has thus far missed an opportunity to provide a stable framework for the Idaho grand jury system, which, although in its infancy, has now become very attractive as a prosecutor’s vehicle.
“The third circuit case of United States v. Serubo, 604 F.2d 807, speaks to prosecutor abuses by finding:
‘We recognize that dismissal of an indictment may impose important costs upon the prosecution and the public. At a minimum, the government will be re*324quired to present its evidence to a grand jury unaffected by bias or prejudice. But the costs of continued unchecked prosecutorial misconduct are also substantial. This is particularly so before the grand jury, where the prosecutor operates without the check of a judge or a trained legal adversary, and virtually immune from public scrutiny. The prosecutor’s abuse of his special relationship to the grand jury poses an enormous risk to defendants as well. For while in theory a trial provides the defendant with a full opportunity to contest and disprove the charges against him, in practice, the handing up of an indictment will often have a devastating personal and professional impact that a later dismissal or acquittal can never undo. Where the potential for abuse is so great, and the consequences of a mistaken indictment so serious, the ethical responsibilities of the prosecutor, and the obligation of the judiciary to protect against even the appearance of unfairness, are correspondingly heightened. We suspect that dismissal of an indictment may be virtually the only effective way to encourage compliance with these ethical standards, and to protect defendants from abuse of the grand jury process ’. (Emphasis mine)
United States v. Serubo 604 F.2d 807, at 817
“The prosecutor abuses involved in this case are varied, numerous and pervasive throughout each issue presented on appeal.
“Mr. Hamlett utilized a magnitude of hearsay before the grand jury, the same including newspaper articles, letters, unsworn statements taken by State investigators, transcribed testimony from earlier hearings (Magistrate’s Inquiry), and his own arguments.
“Federal Courts, having previously and ineffectively admonished prosecutors, are taking notice and pursuing corrective measures which are presently available to this Court. The Court in United States v. Estepa, 471 F.2d 1132, held:
‘The many opinions in which we have affirmed convictions despite the Government's needless reliance on hearsay before the grand jury show how loathe we have been to open up a new road for attacking convictions on grounds unrelated to the merits. We have been willing to allow ample, many doubtless think too ample, latitude in the needless use of hearsay, subject to only two provisos — that the prosecutor does not deceive grand jurors as to “the shoddy merchandise they are getting so they can seek something better if they wish.” ’
United States v. Estepa, 471 F.2d at 1137.
“Estepa continued:
‘Here the Assistant United States Attorney, whether wittingly or unwittingly— we prefer to think the latter, clearly violated the first of these provisos. We cannot, with proper respect for the discharge of our duties, content ourselves with yet another admonition; a reversal with instructions to dismiss the indictment may help to translate the assurances of the United States Attorneys into consistent performance by their assistants.’
United States v. Estepa, Supra at 1137
“In summarizing Estepa, supra, the Court, in United States v. Gallo, 394 F.Supp. 310, stated:
‘Disturbed at the apparent disregard of its warnings to prosecutors in this Circuit concerning the widespread use of hearsay evidence before grand juries, the Court of Appeals felt compelled in Estepa to reverse the judgments of conviction because in the proper exercise of its judicial duties, it could not content itself with “yet another admonition”. United States v. Estepa, supra at 1137.’
United States v. Gallo, 394 F.Supp. at 309-310 [315]
“This Court recognized that much hearsay was presented to the ‘Edmonson’ Grand Jury, yet has apparently chosen to ignore, and thus allow the Prosecutor to ignore, the clear dictates of ICR 6(f) and Idaho Code 19-1105. It is a concern to this writer that prosecutors have been ‘turned loose’ to pursue their own ends. This *325Court is perpetuating such eventuality by recognizing the problem and simply giving Mr. Hamlett and others similarly situated a slight tap on the wrist. Footnote 1 on Page 236, 743 P.2d page 465 of this Court’s majority opinion in this case states: ‘Despite the rule we announce today, prosecutors should endeavor to preclude any hearsay evidence from grand jury proceedings.’ Such an admonition seems hollow following this Court’s tacit approval of the material Mr. Hamlett presented to the Latah County Grand Jury.
“In addition to hearsay, Mr. Hamlett presented the Grand Jury with his instructions, his arguments, his recollection and view of the evidence, his opinion on how many of them should always be present, and his view on witnesses credibility. The majority opinion agrees with Edmonson that some of Mr. Hamlett’s statements are impermissible. Notwithstanding this Cqurt’s statement that: ‘... he (Mr. Hamlett) overstepped the bounds of permissible conduct’, the Court ratified such impermissible conduct by concluding such conduct did not act to prejudice the Grand Jury in any way or infringe upon their independent thought process. It is difficult to grasp the continuity of such thought; the Court tells Hamlett to keep his hand out of the cookie jar as it hands him a cookie.
“The question of unauthorized persons being present before the Grand Jury also ties itself to Mr. Hamlett’s conduct. As noted in. this Court’s opinion in the case at bar, ‘the purpose of Idaho Code § 19-1111 and I.C.R. 6(d), is quite clear. It is designed to guard the secrecy of the Grand Jury proceedings and to assure that the jurors are free from undue influence and intimidation thereby allowing them to make an independent determination of probable cause’. 1987 Opinion #59, p. 16. By analogy, the case of United States v. Pignatiello, 582 F.Supp. 251 provides a good discussion on a Rule 6(d) violation for which the Court dismissed an indictment. In Pignatiello, an SEC attorney attended a grand jury proceeding as a special assistant to the United States Attorney. Although Federal statutes were involved, the similar circumstances to the case at bar are obvious. The Court found that because the government SEC lawyer was not properly sworn in as a government Attorney General Assistant, her presence was violative of (ICR) Rule 6(d), and warranted application of a per se rule mandating indictment dismissal.
“Notwithstanding ICR 6(d) and Idaho Code § 19-1111, Mr. Hamlett brought Mr. Brian Donesley, a Department of Law Enforcement Attorney, before the Grand Jury to testify and/or advise and/or argue the applicability of Idaho RICO statutes.
“Either as indicating additional prosecutor misconduct or as simply violative of ICR 6(d) and Idaho Code § 19-1111, Mr. Donesley’s presence further removed the Grand Jury from its intended purpose of an independent, unprejudiced body. See also, United States v. Hogan, 712 F.2d 757.
“The Hogan case, supra, provides an excellent discussion on balancing the actions of a prosecutor before a Grand Jury and the rights of an accused. The Hogan Court stated:
‘Interposing a grand jury between the individual and the government serves the intended purpose of limiting indictments for higher crimes to those offenses charged by a group of one’s fellow citizens acting independently of the prosecution and the court. See Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 218, 80 S.Ct. 270, 273, 4 L.Ed.2d 252 (1960). In this independent position, a grand jury performs two distinct roles. It serves as an accuser sworn to investigate and present for trial persons suspected of wrongdoing. At the same time — and equally important — it functions as a shield, standing between the accuser and the accused, protecting the individual citizen against oppressive and unfounded government prosecution’.
United States v. Hogan, 712 F.2d 757
“In conclusion, it is submitted that by allowing and tacitly approving the actions of Prosecutor Hamlett this Court threatens to remove the independent status of Grand Juries in Idaho and effectively destroy their intended purpose as shields of individ*326uals like Mr. Edmonson and similar persons with the misfortune of facing a prosecutor and his/her ‘personal indictment panel’.
“By reconsidering the majority opinion and holding prosecutors to constitutionally mandated standards, values and actions, this Court can present Idaho with a Grand Jury system which is well conceived, well guided and capable of providing justice which preserves and protects the rights of individuals and the citizenry.”
In conclusion, it is urged upon those members of this court who might be inclined to brush this petition aside, that as a Court we have accomplished nothing by the disposition of this appeal which is contained in our opinion for the Court. What substance is there in it which will serve to guide the trial bench? Little that I can find. There is a discussion of the Oregon cases of Clark, Edmonson, and Freeland, followed by a conclusion that Oregon’s Supreme Court has ruled that that state’s equal protection clause requires a prosecutor to treat similarly situated defendants equally. The discussion is immediately rendered meaningless by the majority’s ipse dixit that we refuse to adopt the reasoning of the Oregon Supreme Court.
There follows an equally vapid discussion as to equal rights in general, which concludes that in Idaho we do have “two alternative charging procedures,” either of which can be used, but “subject to an equal protection analysis.” (p. 234, 743 P.2d p. 463). The opinion mentions Edmonson’s challenge to being subjected to a secret grand jury proceeding resulting in an indictment, whereas other co-defendants were charged by information (probably following felony criminal complaint filed in a magistrate court), and Edmonson’s systematic exclusion from the right to a preliminary hearing, (p. 234, 743 P.2d p. 463). Then the majority jumps to the Lem Woon v. Oregon case, a 1913 case from the High Court in Washington, D.C. The holding of that case, as set forth in the majority opinion (p. 234, 743 P.2d p. 463) is less than meaningless. It is a nothing. We are involved with a state of Idaho criminal prosecution, state of Idaho criminal procedure, and the right to a preliminary hearing under Idaho law. As I stated at the outset, where the majority decrees that Edmonson has waived his right to a preliminary hearing — which it declares dispositive — impliedly the majority has recognized such a right — a first in Idaho, except for Judge Bengston actually being first in time.
Probably the most outstanding statement by the majority is that “any advantage that a preliminary hearing affords a defendant is purely incidental to that purpose.” (p. 234, 743 P.2d p. 463). If you can bring me two hundred lawyers who will accept that premise, I will show you two hundred lawyers who are entirely unversed in the criminal practice. That statement in the majority opinion shows that those in the majority have either not read the Oregon cases of Clark and Freeland, or the California Hawkins case, or perhaps see the opinions of those courts as being ill-advised, incompetent, and of no persuasion. Clark, quoted supra, at 233-234, 743 P.2d at 462-463.
In concluding its Part I, the Court demonstrates that, while acknowledging that the prosecutor elected to differentiate between the charging procedures against Edmonson as against the other defendants, he has produced insufficient “evidence of a deliberate and intentional plan to discriminate ...” (p. 235, 743 P.2d p. 464). Exactly what evidence the majority expects and wants is an unknown. In actuality it is a pure case of res ipsa loquitur, and the prosecutor should be made to assume and bear the burden of explaining away the facial differentiation in handling persons accused jointly of the same criminal conduct.
My May 29, 1987, opinion contained a paragraph which, on denial of petition for rehearing is needful of repeating. Four months have elapsed since I wrote that passage. The case against Ray Edmonson passed out of district court jurisdiction January 15,1987, now almost nine months ago. Presumably the state of Idaho wants to take Roy Edmonson to trial, convict him, and jail him. And, perhaps he has been in jail all of this time.
*327In the paragraph above alluded to, this is what was written, short, and to the point:
As mentioned earlier, reason and practicality dictate that the district court be directed to allow the defendants the preliminary hearing which they seek. For the life of me I cannot understand the solicitor-general’s objection. The preliminary hearing could have been held and over months ago, and the case pursued in district court.
Judge Bengston, from what he wrote, in all likelihood would have granted Edmonson a preliminary hearing had one been requested. Perhaps had he had the benefit of having it drawn specifically to his attention that in the Clark case there was no specific motion for a preliminary hearing, a preliminary hearing would have been given Edmonson, a trial would have shortly thereafter taken place, and this Court would not have concerned itself with an appeal which, insofar as it will guide the trial bench and bar, is a futile gesture.
Judge Bengston also favored us with a view that the legislature or the court should come up with a rule allowing an indicted felony defendant the right of a preliminary hearing, specifically.
This case served to provide the vehicle for doing so. Unfortunately as has been earlier noted, other than in the Minich2 case, this Court has fallen into the notion that rule by case-law is outmoded. Instead committees have to be formed, chaired by an interested member of the Court, gathered together from all parts of Idaho into Boise, and thereafter the Court gives birth to another rule.
Particularly, though, as was mentioned back in May of this year, I cited another much earlier case-law rule which Justice Bakes used to an advantage in Odenwalt v. Irving, all of which is found in my May Opinion, p. 244, 743 P.2d p. 473.
Continuing to be the most perplexing problem is the majority’s absolute abstention from observing the Hawkins case from California. Even now on rehearing it obdurately does not deign to discuss it and is equally oblivious to Judge Bengston’s discussion of and near persuasion to it. The trial bench and bar will be at a loss to accept such as responsible appellate practice. Justice Bakes was undoubtedly sincere when he cited prior authority from Wisconsin as the backbone of his Odenwalt decision. But where is he now, when the same principles necessarily require that we adopt and/or utilize the California court’s Hawkins decision?
As a final comment, since our May opinion was released, a grand jury was convened in Twin Falls County. It indicted a number of defendants after considerable hearings. Thereafter, District Judge Hurl-butt and District Judge Meehl dismissed the indictments because of irregularities in the process — probably not an inexpensive loss of time and money and judicial resources.
Where we are today, so far as is readily discernible, is no better educated in grand jury proceedings than we were a year go, or five years ago. Before the turn of the century it was otherwise.
As of now the Solicitor-General may know the distinction between an indictment and a presentment. But if he does, he learned from the May 1987 opinions, not including the majority. If grand jury proceedings are going to be the wave of the future (apparently the intention of the Twin Falls prosecutor) this Court in disposing of the Edmonson appeal has done little to be of any assistance, and nothing in the way of guidance.

. Minich v. Gem State Developers, Inc., 99 Idaho 911, 591 P.2d 1078 (1979).