Crimmins v. Superior Court, In and For Maricopa County, 12-E

• Decision Date: 03 August 1983
• Docket Number: No. 12-E,No. 16505-SA,12-E,16505-SA
• Citation: 668 P.2d 882,137 Ariz. 39
• Parties: Thomas D. CRIMMINS, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of the State of Arizona, In and For the COUNTY OF MARICOPA, and the Honorable Philip W. Marquardt, judge of divisionthereof, and Thomas E. Collins, Maricopa County Attorney, real party in interest, Respondents.
• Court: Arizona Supreme Court

Page 882

668 P.2d 882

137 Ariz. 39

Thomas D. CRIMMINS, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of the State of Arizona, In and For the COUNTY OF MARICOPA, and the Honorable Philip W. Marquardt, judge of division No. 12-E thereof, and Thomas E. Collins, Maricopa County Attorney, real party in interest, Respondents.

No. 16505-SA.

Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc.

Aug. 3, 1983.

Hiner, Crowe & Scott by Michael B. Scott, Phoenix, for petitioner.

Thomas E. Collins, Maricopa County Atty. by John Wilkinson, Deputy County Atty., Phoenix, for respondents.

HAYS, Justice

This special action turns on the question of whether the trial court abused its discretion or acted arbitrarily or capriciously in denying petitioner's motion, challenging his indictment for kidnapping and assault, under rule 12.9, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S. In that motion Crimmins alleged he was denied substantial procedural rights by virtue of the prosecutor's failure to (1) present the evidence in a fair and impartial manner, and (2) advise the grand jurors of the right of a private individual to make a citizen's arrest. The motion was denied after a hearing on February 15, 1983, and this special action followed. We have jurisdiction under the Arizona Constitution, art. 6, § 5(1), and Rule 8, Rules of Procedure for Special Actions, 17A A.R.S. We find that the denial of that motion was an abuse of discretion, and we remand for a redetermination of probable cause.

Five days after Crimmins' arrest on charges of kidnapping and assault, his defense counsel wrote to the office of the Maricopa County Attorney to confirm what he understood to be the prosecutor's oral agreement "... to allow us to meet with you regarding this case prior to the initiation of another complaint so we can answer any questions you might have and make our side of the case known." The county attorney made no response to the letter, which also briefly related circumstances leading to the kidnapping charge. Those circumstances and their presentation as evidence raise the substantive issue in this case so we set them out here in some detail.

On November 17, 1982, Crimmins returned home from work in the late afternoon and discovered that his house had been burglarized. He suspected that a neighbor's teenaged son (Blumer) might have been responsible so he proceeded to the boy's home. Once there, he talked with the boy's mother who told him that her son was at a neighborhood video arcade with some of his friends. Crimmins went there, and as he drove up he saw Blumer and some other juveniles in front of the place of business. Crimmins approached the group, noticing as he walked up to them that one of the boys (Val) was wearing a pair of stereo headphones similar to a pair taken from Crimmins' home that afternoon. When Crimmins attempted to detain Val, the young man broke free and ran but Crimmins managed to retrieve the headset from him.

As Val ran off, Crimmins turned and seized another boy (Federico) who had been standing with the group that included Val. He placed Federico in his jeep and returned to the Crimmins home. Crimmins questioned Federico while both were still in the vehicle, obtaining a list of names (including Paul Val) of persons who, according to Federico, were with Blumer at his apartment on the afternoon of November 17. Crimmins then left the jeep, directing Federico to wait there, and allegedly locked Federico in the vehicle.

Before returning to the jeep Crimmins verified the list of names by consulting with Blumer, who had by then returned home, and called the police to report a burglary with suspect in custody. He then returned to the jeep to question Federico further and made at least one more visit to Blumer's apartment. At some point, upon returning to his jeep, Crimmins discovered that Federico had fled.

Federico made his way to a nearby supermarket where he called his parents and reported that he had been detained and questioned by Crimmins. Federico's parents called the police and reported a kidnapping and assault. Separate police units were dispatched to Crimmins' home for the burglary call and to the supermarket on the kidnapping report. Crimmins was arrested later that evening.

No conference ever occurred between the county attorney and Crimmins. Ultimately, the case was received by the grand jury on December 2, 1982.

The Rules of Criminal Procedure permit a challenge to the grand jury proceeding on only two grounds. 17 A.R.S. Rules of Criminal Procedure, rule 12.9. Pursuant to that rule, petitioner has asserted two denials of his substantial procedural rights as noted above. Petitioner correctly points out that an accused is entitled to due process during grand jury proceedings. State v. Emery, 131 Ariz. 493, 506, 642 P.2d 838, 851 (1982). In particular, due process here requires the use of an unbiased grand jury and a fair and impartial presentation of the evidence. Id.

Our state's courts have recognized the historical independence of the grand jury. Marston's, Inc. v. Strand, 114 Ariz. 260, 560 P.2d 778 (1977). The necessity of maintaining that independence arises because of the grand jury's unique role in bringing to trial those who may be guilty and clearing the unjustly accused. The duties of fair play and impartiality imposed on those who attend and serve the grand jury are meant to ensure that the determinations made by that body are informed, objective and just.

Our reading of all the exhibits indicates that the grand jury was not adequately informed of the facts and law. The separate police investigations proceeded independently at first, but it appears from the police reports submitted as exhibits that by the time Crimmins was arrested there was some degree of awareness by all the police that they were dealing with interrelated events. It further appears from the police report of Blumer's statement that at least some of the juveniles who spent the afternoon and early evening with Federico are the burglars who broke into Crimmins' home.

The state's only witness, Officer Rapp, had participated in the investigation which revealed that Federico had been in the company of the group that included the likely burglars for most of the afternoon and evening of the day when they broke into the Crimmins home. Nevertheless, his testimony before the grand jury inaccurately represented what the police knew about Federico and his possible involvement in the burglary, as this exchange illustrates:

Q. [By Mr. Nelson, Deputy County Attorney] Did your investigation reveal whether or not Arthur Federico was in any way involved in the burglary involving the Thomas Crimmins residence?

A. [By Officer Rapp, Phoenix Police Department] At this time, from interviews with other juveniles, I do not feel and do not believe that Arthur was involved in any way with the burglary.

Q. You have no evidence whatsoever to indicate he was involved?

A. None.

The witness' first statement is not responsive to the prosecutor's question, but is certain to give the impression of a negative answer. The second answer is, in our opinion, inaccurate. While we do not believe the record in this case settles the question of Federico's involvement, the police reports submitted as exhibits lead us to conclude that there was some indication, however uncertain, that Federico might have been involved. Nevertheless, Officer Rapp's testimony alone would not cause us to remand for a redetermination of probable cause.

The effect of his testimony on the minds of the grand jurors can only be fully recognized when it is understood that they considered this inaccurate version of the facts in the context of inadequate instructions on the applicable law. The county attorney did not read the citizen's arrest statutes (A.R.S. §§ 13-3884, 13-3889 and 13-3900) to the grand jury.

It was clear, from Crimmins' telephone call to the police, that he believed he had made a citizen's arrest. Even if petitioner had not reported "suspects in custody," it is obvious that Federico was detained because Crimmins suspected him of a crime. The grand jurors perceived this because one of them asked the witness about how long Federico was detained, whether a burglary actually occurred and when it took place. The answers to those questions are all material to the issues raised by a claim of citizen's arrest. We hold that the citizen's arrest statutes were part of the applicable law given the facts of the case, and it was the duty of the prosecutor as legal adviser to the grand jury to instruct on that law. The omission of that legal advice, considered with the inaccurate testimony, rendered the presentation of this case less than fair and impartial as is required by State v. Emery, supra.

The state has cited us to State v. Jessen, 130 Ariz. 1, 633 P.2d 410 (1981), urging that it is dispositive of Crimmins' claims and requires that he be denied relief. We do not agree.

Jessen, indicted for first degree murder, complained that the grand jury was not instructed as to lesser-included offenses, the elements of those various crimes or potential defenses to prosecution. In addition, Jessen claimed the presentation of evidence to the grand jury was slanted in favor of the state, and that evidence of provocation by the victim and the accused's fear of the victim were withheld from the grand jury. This court found no error in the trial court's denial of Jessen's motion for a new determination of probable cause.

First, we note that Jessen recognizes the principle that "[c]ourts generally do not concern themselves with the evidence underlying a grand jury indictment." Id. at 5, 633 P.2d at 414. This rule has been variously stated in a series of cases reviewing trial courts' determinations of motions for new findings of probable cause. Those cases clearly prohibit a trial court from considering an attack on an indictment based on the nature, weight or sufficiency of the evidence presented to the grand jury. S...