People v. Superior Court (1 Grand Jury)

• Citation: 531 P.2d 761,13 Cal.3d 430,119 Cal.Rptr. 193
• Court: United States State Supreme Court (California)
• Decision Date: 29 January 1975
• Parties: , 531 P.2d 761 The PEOPLE et al., Petitioners, v. The SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, Respondent; 1973 GRAND JURY FOR SANTA BARBARA COUNTY et al., Real Parties in Interest. L.A. 30178. In Bank

Page 193

119 Cal.Rptr. 193

13 Cal.3d 430, 531 P.2d 761

The PEOPLE et al., Petitioners, v. The SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, Respondent 1973 GRAND JURY FOR SANTA BARBARA COUNTY et al., Real Parties in Interest.

L.A. 30178.

Supreme Court of California,

In Bank.

Jan. 29, 1975.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 26, 1975.

David D. Minier, Dist. Atty., and Patrick J. McKinley, Deputy Dist. Atty., for petitioners.

Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., Edward A. Hinz, Jr., Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Arlo E. Smith and Doris H. Maier, Asst. Attys. Gen., Derald E. Granberg and April P. Kestell, Deputy Attys. Gen., and Stanford D. Herlick, County Counsel (San Bernardino), as amici curiae on behalf of petitioners.

George P. Kading, County Counsel, Robert D. Curiel, Chief Asst. County Counsel, and Marvin Levine, Deputy County Counsel, for respondent.

John H. Larson, County Counsel, (Los Angeles) Robert C. Lynch, Deputy County Counsel, and Edward L. Lascher, Ventura, as amici curiae on behalf of respondent.

No appearance for real parties in interest.

TOBRINER, Justice.

In California the grand jury, in addition to determining whether or not to indict individuals suspected of crime, exercises an important 'watchdog' function over the operation of many facets of local government. To fulfill this oversight role, the grand jury has been granted extensive statutory authority to prepare 'reports' disclosing its findings and recommendations for improvement in the administration of local government. At the same time the decisions, without contradiction, hold that the grand jury is a component part of the superior court. The question presented in this case is whether that superior court must accept and file Any report which the grand jury prepares or may refuse to accept and file a report which exceeds the grand jury's legal authority.

In an original proceeding instituted by the District Attorney of Santa Barbara County, the Court of Appeal concluded that a superior court must accept any report submitted by a grand jury; in accordance with this conclusion, the appellate court determined that a writ of prohibition should issue restraining the respondent superior court from reviewing any grand jury report submitted to it in the future.

For the reasons discussed hereafter, we have concluded that in this state superior courts are empowered to exercise a limited review of a proposed grand jury report to ensure that the report does not exceed the grand jury's lawful authority. As we shall explain, although California statutes establish a broad realm in which the grand jury is authorized to investigate and report, the grand jury's domain is not unlimited; if a proposed grand jury report exceeds established legal limits, the superior court which convenes the grand jury and which is responsible for its supervision may properly refuse to file the report. Although no California statute explicitly authorizes such judicial action, this limited review is implicit in the statutory scheme confining the grand jury's investigatory authority to specifically enumerated subjects and is confirmed by the numerous common law decisions throughout the United States which uniformly recognize the propriety of a restricted court review of grand jury reports.

In so holding, however, we emphasize that the scope of the superior court's reviewing role is strictly confined to ensuring that reports do not extend beyond the legal boundaries of the grand jury's broad reportorial power. The superior court possesses no authority to edit or seal a report simply because the court disagrees with the report's conclusion, or believes that its recommendations were hastily reached or were not 'justified.' The court's sole function in this realm lies in its power to prevent the official filing of an illegal report: for example, a report on matters which the grand jury has not has not itself investigated or a report concerning activities of a distant municipality not lying within the grand jury's province. Because the requested relief would preclude even this most restricted superior court review, we deny the writ.

The facts which gave rise to the instant proceeding are not in dispute. On October 3, 1972, the Santa Barbara District Attorney presented evidence before the 1972 Santa Barbara Grand Jury concerning the county pathologist, Dr. McAlpine. Witnesses before the grand jury included a deputy sheriff assigned to the coroner's detail, a representative of a mortuary, the sheriff, the county hospital administrator and Dr. McAlpine. After hearing the testimony the grand jury submitted to the superior court an 'Interim Report' detailing a series of 'irregularities' for which Dr. McAlpine was allegedly responsible and setting forth certain recommendations for procedural changes in the handling of financial and other matters in the county hospital's pathology department.

On October 24, 1972, Judge Dodson, the presiding judge of the Santa Barbara Superior Court, met with the grand jury and explained at some length why he believed that the interim report did not satisfy applicable legal standards. Judge Dodson stressed that a grand jury report which directs serious accusations at a specified individual "castigates him, impugns his integrity . . . and . . . subjects him to the odium of condemnation by an arm of the judicial branch of the government, without giving him the slightest chance to defend himself. . . ." The presiding judge also warned the jurors that statements in the report could subject each of them to libel actions. (See Pen.Code, § 930.) Finally, the judge informed the jurors that because of his conclusions as to the impropriety of the report, he had both a right and a duty to see that the report was not filed or made public. Judge Dodson then ordered the interim report sealed and directed he jury to turn to preparation of its final report with assistance, if necessary, of the county counsel.

On January 9, 1973, the grand jury submitted a final report to the superior court which contained a 'special report' on the pathology department of the county hospital. This special report reiterated many of the recommendations contained in the earlier interim report but omitted the specific allegations of misconduct by Dr. McAlpine which the earlier report detailed. The superior court accepted and filed the final report.

Thereafter, in advising the 1973 grand jury of its powers and duties (see Pen.Code, § 914), Judge Dodson instructed: 'In accordance with established policy of many courts, I instruct you to deliver to me all grand jury reports prior to filing them, and I instruct the clerk of this court not to accept for filing any grand jury report until I have accepted it for filing.'

The District Attorney of Santa Barbara County then filed the instant petition for writ of mandate and prohibition in the Court of Appeal, seeking (1) to restrain the superior court from requiring the 1973 grand jury to submit all reports to the presiding judge for his approval prior to filing, and (2) to compel the superior court to set aside its order sealing the interim report of the 1972 grand jury. ¹

Relying upon he absence of any specific statutory provision authorizing a court's review of grand jury reports, the Court of Appeal granted petitioner's initial request, and determined that a writ should issue 'prohibiting the respondent Superior Court of Santa Barbara County from . . . altering, amending or in any way interfering with the filing of future reports of the Grand Jury. . . .' The Court of Appeal declined, however, to order the superior court to unseal the interim report, reasoning that the filing of the grand jury's final report--containing many of the same items covered by the interim report--had rendered the district attorney's second request moot. ² Respondent court thereafter sought review of the Court of Appeal's determination that superior courts have no authority under any circumstances to review a proposed grand jury report prior to filing. Because of the novelty and statewide significance of this issue, ³ we granted the petition for hearing.

In California, unlike some other American jurisdictions, ⁴ the grand jury's role as a vigilant 'watchdog' over the operations of a variety of local governmental activities has a long and well respected heritage. As long ago as 1880, the Legislature assigned to the grand jury the responsibility of making 'a careful and complete examination of the books, records and accounts of all officers of the county . . . And report thereon.' (Emphasis added.) (Pen.Code Ann. 1880, ch. 109, p. 43; see Pen.Code, § 925.) ⁵ Over the ensuing years, the Legislature has continually expanded the boundaries of the grand jury's investigatory and reportorial domain, authorizing the grand jury to make inquiry into and report on the 'needs of all county officers' including the desirability of abolishing or creating county offices and the adequacy of the existing 'method or system of performing' county duties (Stats.1911, ch. 200, p. 373, § 1; Pen.Code, § 928), the propriety of the salaries paid to various public officials (Stats.1943, ch. 93, p. 798, § 1; Pen.Code, § 927), the operation of special-purpose assessing or taxing districts located wholly or in part within the county (Stats.1961, ch. 1461, p. 3313, § 2; Stats.1969, ch. 931, p. 1870, § 1; Pen.Code, § 933.5), and, most recently, the state of the fiscal affairs of any incorporated city within the county (Stats.1973, ch. 1036, p. 2055, § 3; Pen.Code, § 925a.)

Past cases have recognized the valuable and unique role a grand jury fulfills in carrying out its authorized investigations and reporting on its findings and recommendations. As the court in Monroe v. Garrett (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 280, 284, 94 Cal.Rptr. 531, 533--534, recently observed: 'In our system of government, a Grand Jury is the only agency free from possible political or official bias that has an opportunity to see . . ....