Gher v. District Court In and For Adams County, 1
| Decision Date | 10 December 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 26190,1,26190 |
| Citation | 516 P.2d 643,183 Colo. 316 |
| Parties | Kenneth R. GHER, as Secretary-Treasurer of School Districtin the City and County of Denver and State of Colorado, Petitioner, v. The DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF ADAMS and State of Colorado, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Henry, Cockrell, Quinn & Creighton, Richard C. Cockrell, Benjamin L. Craig, Peter J. Wiebe, Jr., Denver, for petitioner.
Floyd Marks, Harlan R. Bockman, James E. Heiser, Commerce City, for respondents.
The district attorney of Adams County caused a so-called grand jury subpoena duces tecum to be served on Kenneth R. Gher, the secretary-treasurer of School District No. 1 in the City and County of Denver, which compelled that voluminous records of the school district be produced. Counsel for the school district moved to quash the subpoena, and the district court denied the motion. The school district filed an original proceeding in the nature of prohibition with this court, and we issued a rule to show cause. We now make the rule to show cause absolute.
The subpoena duces tecum which is before us is Sui generis. The document in issue bears some resemblance to both a civil and a criminal subpoena. Both parties have loosely referred to this document as a grand jury subpoena, and we have elected, for the purpose of this proceeding, to treat it as such.
The issuance of the subpoena was initiated by the Adams County district attorney in an effort to compel School District No. 1 (Denver) to assemble and transmit to the Adams County grand jury 'all records, documents, exhibits and minutes of meetings either approving or disapproving or relating to annexations of Adams County land into Denver in the last two years.' The Adams County district attorney's answer brief, which tends to ignore the issues involved in this original proceeding, suggests that 'the purpose of the grand jury subpoena was to elicit testimony presented before the School Board in Denver which might establish the commission of a crime in Adams County, Colorado.' Even if we were to assume that this bald statement in the answer brief reveals the genuine purpose behind the grand jury subpoena, we would be forced to recognize that the breadth of the demand reflects impropriety and reason for close judicial scrutiny.
The record and pleadings, together with admissions made by the Adams County district attorney to the School Board of School District No. 1, reveal the true purpose behind the grand jury subpoena in this case. The district attorney attempted to use the grand jury as a means of developing facts relating to an annexation dispute between Denver and some of the surrounding counties and municipalities. This annexation does not involve any possible violation of criminal laws and is not the proper focus of a grand jury proceeding. A grand jury may, not in the absence of enabling legislation, act in civil matters or exercise its authority to harass another governmental body for political or civil purposes. No statutory authority exists in Colorado which permits a grand jury to extend its investigatory jurisdiction into a civil or political annexation dispute by the hollow assertion that the inquiry has criminal overtones.
A grand jury has historically functioned not only as an accusatory...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Corr
...are satisfied that under the facts of this case the subpoenas were not bona fide grand jury subpoenas. Here, as in Gher v. District Court, 183 Colo. 316, 516 P.2d 643 (1973), grand jury subpoenas were used for an improper purpose. See also People v. Vesely, 41 Colo.App. 325, 587 P.2d 802 It......
-
Marston's, Inc. v. Strand
...by a motion to quash a subpoena. A 1973 decision of the Supreme Court of Colorado is compelling on this issue. Gher v. District Court, 183 Colo. 316, 516 P.2d 643 (1973). The decision involved a grand jury subpoena duces tecum issued for voluminous records of a school district. The prosecut......
-
People v. Rickard
...is to investigate possible offenses and to act as an independent barrier protecting the innocent from prosecution); Gher v. District Court, 183 Colo. 316, 516 P.2d 643 (1973) (grand jury acts not only as accusatory body but also as investigative body). Under the facts, the conduct of the in......
-
Benson v. People
...See, e.g., People v. Corr, 682 P.2d 20 (Colo.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 855, 105 S.Ct. 181, 83 L.Ed.2d 115 (1984); Gher v. District Court, 183 Colo. 316, 516 P.2d 643 (1973). We therefore conclude that the demand satisfies the first requirement that it be for a "lawfully authorized Although ......
-
Amending Indictments in Colorado: Rule 6.8, Colo. R. Crim. P
...that integrity in the first instance. NOTES _____________________ Footnotes: 1. See Gher v. District Court In and For Adams County, 183 Colo. 316, 516 P.2d 643 (1973); Note, "Criminal Law: Misdemeanor Indictments Cannot Be Constructively Amended," 43 Fordham L. Rev. 648, 649 (1975); McClint......