Court Opinion

ID: 9545419
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:12:09.257343+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:14:45.628584
License: Public Domain

BRYNER, Chief Judge,
concurring.
I join in the court’s opinion as to the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel. However, I find it necessary to follow a different course from that which the court takes in reaching the conclusion that the plain error rule does not apply to this case.
Although I believe that the court’s opinion states cogent reasons for circumspection in applying the plain error doctrine to cases where questions concerning the validity of an indictment are raised for the first time on appeal, I nonetheless think that specific consideration of the merits of Gaona’s claim is required by Criminal Rule 47(b) and that per se rejection of the applicability of plain error to this case is not warranted.
Criminal Rule 47(b) requires, first, an inquiry whether error affecting a substantive right of the defendant has been shown. Dorman v. State, 622 P.2d 448, 457 (Alaska 1981).
The Alaska Constitution, in Article 1, § 8, provides, in pertinent part:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless upon presentment or indictment of a grand jury ....
The significance of the grand jury as an independent institution affording protection to persons accused of crime has long been recognized:
*539Historically, [the grand jury] has been regarded as a primary security to the innocent against hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution; it serves the invaluable function in our society of standing between the accuser and the accused

Wood v. Georgia, 370 U.S. 375, 390, 82 S.Ct. 1364, 1373, 8 L.Ed.2d 569, 580 (1962). See also Frink v. State, 597 P.2d 154, 165 (Alaska 1979); State v. Gieffels, 554 P.2d 460, 464 (Alaska 1976).
The relationship of the prosecutor to the grand jury is established as an advisory one by Alaska R.Crim.P. 6(i), which specifies that the district attorney is “to advise [the grand jury] of their duties . . . . ” The prosecutor’s duty to act in an advisory capacity to the grand jury must at all times be tempered by a respect for the traditional independence of that body:
Where the prosecutor is authorized to act as legal advisor to the grand jury he must appropriately explain the law and express his opinion on the legal significance of the evidence but he should give due deference to its status as an independent legal body.
ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, The Prosecution Function § 3-3.5(a) at 3.48 (1980) (emphasis added). Thus, implicit in the prosecutor’s duty to advise the grand jury is the obligation to give advice which is correct and does not impinge upon the grand jury’s autonomy. The state must not lose sight of the fact that it is the prosecutor who serves the grand jury and not the converse.
In performing its authorized functions, the grand jury is specifically empowered to order the production of evidence and to hear testimony on behalf of the accused, regardless of whether such evidence or testimony is offered at the initiative of the prosecution. See Alaska R.Crim.P. 6(q) and (p). See also Frink v. State, 597 P.2d at 165-66. The record in the present case shows that the prosecution, by giving the grand jury ill-considered advice and instructions, unduly restricted its authority to function autonomously by effectively foreclosing it from exercising its independent authority to call for testimony and evidence.
The remarks of the prosecutor quoted by the court in its opinion demonstrate a failure to distinguish between the prosecutor’s duty to present evidence and the authority of the grand jury to call for and consider evidence of its own accord. It is well within the province of the grand jury to call for more than the prosecutor may wish to present. Accordingly, the grand jury cannot, by advice of the prosecution, be compelled to restrict its inquiry to “just the state’s case.”
Beyond the exchange quoted by the court in the text of its opinion, I deem it significant that the prosecutor additionally gave the following admonition to the grand jury:
[A]gain, you know, in your instructions that the judge gave you, you’re not here to go into possible defenses or explanations, necessarily. You are to determine what [sic-whether] the evidence, unexplained and uncontradicted, is insufficient [sic — sufficient] to merit conviction.
This instruction misrepresents the proper function of the grand jury, for there is no question that it is in fact within the grand jury’s prerogative to inquire “into possible defenses and explanations” if it so desires.
The Alaska Supreme Court, in Frink v. State, 597 P.2d at 164-65, reasoned that, unless the grand jury was made aware of evidence tending to negate the defendant’s guilt, it could not be expected to exercise its powers to call additional witnesses and to inquire further into issues which it might deem significant. By parallel logic, it seems to me that the grand jury cannot be expected to call for evidence which it would be entitled to hear if it is advised in unequivocal terms by the prosecutor that it has no business doing so. Though it may well be that the prosecutor here was under no obligation to present evidence of self-defense to the grand jury in the first instance, it does not follow that the issue of self-defense was one with which the grand jury could not properly become concerned. Yet here, the remarks of the prosecutor assured *540that the grand jury would not pursue its inquiry into this issue.
I would therefore conclude that the remarks of the prosecutor to the grand jury in this case violated his duty under Criminal Rule 6(i) to render accurate advice to the grand jury concerning its duties and to give deference to the independence of the grand jury in providing such advice. Given the vital role played by the grand jury in our criminal justice system, the conclusion appears inescapable that this violation was one which affected Gaona’s substantial rights within the meaning of Criminal Rule 47(b).
This conclusion, however, cannot be determinative of the outcome of the case, since the plain error rule requires more. In order to conclude that reversal is warranted by plain error, the error found must not only affect a substantive right of the accused, but it must also be obviously prejudicial. Dorman v. State, 622 P.2d at 457; Tuekfield v. State, 621 P.2d 1350, 1352 (Alaska 1981).
I am convinced that no obvious prejudice resulted to Gaona from the state’s improper comments to the grand jury. As the court’s opinion notes, the law imposes strict limitations on the use of deadly force in defense against the threat of non-deadly force. I believe the evidence of self-defense in this case was so slight that even if the grand jury had sought out and considered all available evidence bearing on the issue, there is no reasonable possibility that its decision to indict Gaona would have been affected. For this reason, I conclude that obvious prejudice has not been shown and that plain error has not been established.
My views concerning the strength and weight of the available evidence concerning self-defense lead me to the further conclusion that there was no violation by the state of its duty to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury. Assuming the prosecution was aware of all potential evidence of self-defense at the time it presented its case to the grand jury, this evidence would have fallen far short of constituting evidence reasonable tending to negate Gaona’s guilt. Frink v. State, 597 P.2d at 164-66.
For the reasons stated above, I concur with the court’s decision that the plain error rule is inapplicable to the issues of prosecu-torial misconduct and failure to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury.