Herrera v. Sanchez
| Decision Date | 12 June 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 34,355.,34,355. |
| Citation | 328 P.3d 1176 |
| Parties | Amy HERRERA, Petitioner, v. Hon. Ross C. SANCHEZ, Second Judicial District Judge, Respondent, and State of New Mexico, Real Party in Interest. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
D. Eric Hannum, Esq., Lupe Preciado, Esq., Albuquerque, NM, for Petitioner.
Gary K. King, Attorney General, Scott Fuqua, Assistant Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Respondent.
Gary K. King, Attorney General, Scott Fuqua, Assistant Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Real Party in Interest.
{1} After her indictment for second-degree murder, but prior to trial, Petitioner Amy Herrera sought a writ of mandamus from this Court directing the district court to dismiss the indictment. Petitioner contends that the prosecuting attorney assisting the grand jury failed to adhere to certain structural protections of our grand jury statutes that are critical to the integrity of our grand jury system. Specifically, Petitioner argues that the prosecutor prevented the grand jury from inquiring into the facts demonstrating probable cause and failed to act in a fair and impartial manner when instructing the grand jury. We agree that the manner in which the prosecutor conducted the grand jury proceedings warrants dismissal of the indictment. We therefore issued a writ of mandamus directing the district court to dismiss the indictment without prejudice to the State's right to bring new criminal charges against Petitioner. In this opinion we discuss our reasons for issuing the writ.
{2} On July 1, 2012, Petitioner's husband Marc Herrera died at home from a single gunshot wound to the face. Police initially treated the shooting as a suicide. Several months later the death was determined to be a homicide, and Petitioner was charged by criminal complaint with an open count of murder.
{3} The assistant district attorney decided to present the case to the grand jury for a determination of probable cause. Petitioner therefore became the target of a grand jury investigation. A week before the grand jury was scheduled to convene, Petitioner's attorney delivered a letter to the assistant district attorney who would be prosecuting the case, requesting that the prosecuting attorney alert the grand jury to a variety of evidence that Petitioner deemed exculpatory. The letter included a request that the grand jury be alerted to potential witness testimony from Petitioner's friend Elizabeth Downs. As explained in the letter,
Ms. Herrera asks that the grand jury be allowed to hear the testimony of Elizabeth Downs. Ms. Downs is a friend to whom Ms. Herrera had confided that her husband, decedent Marc Herrera, had previously attacked her and threatened to kill her. Ms. Downs will testify that she and Ms. Herrera had discussed an “escape plan” for Ms. Herrera in the event that she felt it was too dangerous to stay in her home with Marc Herrera. Ms. Downs will testify that several weeks before the incident, she had given Ms. Herrera a key to her home to use whenever she felt too frightened by her husband to return to her own home. This evidence will support a finding of self-defense by showing the reasonableness of Ms. Herrera's ongoing fear for her own safety.
{4} The State filed a motion to preclude much of Petitioner's requested evidence, including the potential witness testimony from Ms. Downs. The grand jury judge granted the motion in part. He redacted portions of Petitioner's letter, including the paragraph about Ms. Downs, and attached the modified letter to an order stating “the Grand Jury shall only be advised of the parts of the Letter ... which have not been redacted.” The order explained that parts of the letter had been redacted because they contained “argumentative assertions or ... legal conclusions.”
{5} The assistant district attorney presented the State's case to a grand jury. The grand jury heard testimony from two witnesses, Detective Holly Anderson from the Albuquerque Police Department and Petitioner. Detective Anderson testified first, describing the events that occurred on the night of the shooting and her subsequent investigation of the case.
{6} Petitioner testified after Detective Anderson. Petitioner began,
Well, I think there's a lot that you need to know to make this—well, to make a good decision here today. First of all, I know you didn't know Mar[c], you don't know me, but I'm hoping to give you enough information. Feel free to ask me any questions any time.
Petitioner then gave her account of the events that occurred on the night of the shooting. Petitioner and her husband had been hosting a party at their house for a group of foreign exchange students. At about 3:00 a.m., after an evening of drinking, dancing, and games, everyone was preparing for bed when Marc, intoxicated, pointed a gun at one of the students. Petitioner asked Marc to put the gun away, told Marc it was time for bed, and walked into the couple's bedroom. Marc followed her. Petitioner testified that Marc pushed her down in the bedroom closet, got on top of her with the gun, and put the gun in her face. Petitioner stated she was “absolutely sure” he was going to shoot her, but then he put the gun in his own mouth. Marc placed the gun in Petitioner's hands, saying she “was going to do it,” and she pulled the trigger.
{7} After Petitioner testified, the prosecuting attorney questioned Petitioner as follows:
{8} The prosecuting attorney proceeded to ask whether the grand jurors had any questions for Petitioner. One of the grand jurors asked Petitioner questions. Petitioner answered the grand juror's questions until the prosecuting attorney halted her testimony, as follows:
Ms. HERRERA:—it was escalating.
[ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY]: Unfortunately, that—the information that she's providing you has—is not relevant to this proceeding at the moment. Are there any other questions for her?
The grand jurors asked no additional questions, and Petitioner left the grand jury room.
{9} Before releasing the grand jurors to deliberate, the prosecuting attorney gave them some final jury instructions. The prosecuting attorney began with two instructions modeled on our Uniform Jury Instructions that explain how the grand jury should evaluate witness credibility and opinion testimony:
Credibility. You alone are the judges of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to the testimony of each. In deterring [sic] the credit to be given any witness, you should take into account the witness' truthfulness or untruthfulness, ability and opportunity to observe, manner—to observe, memory, manner while testifying, and interests, bias, or prejudice the witness may have, and the reasonableness of the witness' testimony considered in the light of all the evidence.
Opinion testimony. You should consider each opinion received in evidence in this case and give it such weight as you think it deserves. If you should conclude that the reasons given in support of the opinion are not sound or for that—or that for any other reason the opinion is not correct, you may disregard it.
SeeUJI 14–5020 NMRA (Credibility of witnesses); UJI 14–5050 NMRA (Opinion testimony). The prosecuting attorney then told the grand jury,
You must not concern yourself with the consequences of the verdict. She told you to—to come to the correct conclusion. She was directly appealing to you to consider the consequences of your verdict. That is absolutely inappropriate. Please do not let anything she said to you about, you know, implying what the right decision is influence your decisions. She was improperly seeking your sympathy.
The prosecuting attorney followed this admonition with one final instruction modeled on our Uniform Jury Instructions:
You are the sole judges of the facts. It is your duty to determine the facts from the evidence produced here. Your verdict should not be based on speculation, guess, or conjecture. Neither sympathy nor prejudice should influence your verdict. You are to apply the law as stated in these instructions to the facts as you find them, and in this way decide the case.
SeeUJI 14–6006 NMRA (). The prosecuting attorney then released the grand jury to deliberate, and the grand jury indicted Petitioner for second-degree murder. Petitioner sought to challenge the indictment.
{10} A target of a grand jury investigation has several avenues for challenging the manner in which grand jury...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gutierrez
...for an interlocutory appeal, or file a petition for an extraordinary writ with this Court." Herrera v. Sanchez , 2014-NMSC-018, ¶ 10, 328 P.3d 1176. But a challenge to a grand jury indictment "should be raised before trial because a petit jury's finding at trial of guilt beyond a reasonable......
-
State v. Martinez
...that safeguard the grand jury’s ability to perform its constitutional function." Herrera v. Sanchez , 2014-NMSC-018, ¶¶ 14, 26–27, 32, 328 P.3d 1176 (ordering dismissal of an indictment because a prosecutor unlawfully prevented the grand jury from hearing a target defendant’s answer to ques......
-
State v. Pareo
...structural challenges involving the manner in which the grand jury process has been conducted." Herrera v. Sanchez , 2014-NMSC-018, ¶ 12, 328 P.3d 1176. To succeed on a challenge in the first category, as required by statute, the target must show that the prosecutor acted in bad faith in pr......
-
State v. Deignan
...how the grand jurors should interpret the instructions as they relate to [the target of its investigation].” 2014–NMSC–018, ¶ 30, 328 P.3d 1176. The district court denied Defendant's motion to reconsider, reasoning that the prosecutor's leading questions “summarized what was already testifi......