Court Opinion

ID: 9791030
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:03:42.459736+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:33.477936
License: Public Domain

WASTE, C. J., Dissenting.
I dissent.
The grand jury is a body of citizens provided for and created by the Constitution (art. I, sec. 8), impaneled and sworn to inquire of public offenses, committed or triable within the county. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 192.) It was imported into California jurisprudence by the Constitution of 1849 (art. I, sec. 8). There is in the section no definition of the term “grand jury”. Therefore, it follows that the reference necessarily recognized an existing institution with certain accepted characteristics and prerogatives—-in other words, the grand jury known to the common law. At common law,-and at the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, the grand jury was a body with power of investigation, independent of the prosecuting officers. (Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43 [26 Sup. Ct. 370, 50 L. Ed. 652] ; Blaney v. State, 74 Md. 153 [21 Atl. 547].) The legislature could not take this power away from the constitutionally created body having such common-law prerogatives. In fact, it has bestowed upon it greater inquisitorial power than has ever been bestowed upon it in those states which proceed with it according to the common law. (Pen. Code, secs. 915 et seq., relating to the .powers and duties of a grand jury. In this connection, see Edwards on The Grand *610Jury, page 44, and the charge of Mr. Justice Field in “Case No. 18,255,” 30 Fed. Cas. 992, 2 Sawy. 667.)
As our code sections on the subject of the power of the grand jury are, in some instances, copied from, and in other instances similar to, the provisions in the New York Criminal Code, it may be here noted that the courts of that state adhere to the doctrine of the independence of the grand jury in making investigations other than those instigated by prosecuting officers. (See People ex rel. v. Wyatt, 186 N. Y. 383 [79 N. E. 330, 9 Ann. Cas. 972, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 159], and People v. Davy, 105 App. Div. 598 [94 N. Y. Supp. 1037].)
The respondent takes the position that it has been the generally accepted practice in this state to leave the duty of detecting crime in the hands of sheriffs and district attorneys, and that because the legislature has from time to time enacted certain express statutes charging those officers with the duty of detecting crime in their counties, such granting of express powers to one set of officials denies the existence of an implied power in others. Such a rule has been applied to cases of employment of special counsel in instances where it was the official duty of district attorneys to perform specified services (Merriam v. Barnum, 116 Cal. 619, 622 [48 Pac. 727]); and to cases where the services of the city attorney were available to a city commission (Rafael v. Boyle, 31 Cal. App. 623 [161 Pac. 126]). But we have been cited to no case, and I have found none, in which it has been held that such rule applies to a grand jury with the inherent powers vested by the Constitution and with the authority of the scope expressly delegated by the legislature by enactment of section 192 of the Code of Civil Procedure, supra, and the pertinent sections of the Penal Code. (On the point of inherent powers vested by the Constitution see Millholen v. Riley, 211 Cal. 29 [293 Pac. 69]; and as to implied powers necessary for the due and efficient exercise of the powers expressly granted, see Lewis v. Colgan, 115 Cal. 529 [47 Pac. 357].)
None of the cases relied on by respondent sustain him on this point. In Burns, etc., v. Holt, 138 Minn. 165 [164 N. W. 590], the court held that the grand jurors should not in their private capacities agree to pay detectives for making investigations. In Burns, etc., v. Doyle, 46 Nev. 91 *611[208 Pac. 427, 26 A. L. R. 600], a contract to the same effect was held to be against public policy. Stone v. Bell, 35 Nev. 240 [129 Pac. 458], seems to definitely imply that in certain cases requiring an investigation the grand jury may employ assistance and order the payment for the amount of the services. The decisions of California courts cited by respondent concern boards created by statute, and officers having no duties except through the means provided by statute, and require no special reference thereto.
Section 4307, subdivision 3, of the Political Code, provides that the “expenses necessarily incurred . . . for . . . services in relation to which no specific compensation is prescribed by law” are county charges. The employment of investigators is a necessary and important step in any criminal investigation or proceeding. Such investigation may be conducted, and usually is, through the district attorney’s office. I know of no reason why the grand jury should not have the same power. To hold otherwise would be to seriously impair the efficiency of the inquisitorial body and, in some instances, to destroy its usefulness to the community.
I am of the view that the petitioner is legally entitled to be paid for the services rendered.
Preston, J., concurred.