State v. Richards, C1-90-686
| Decision Date | 24 December 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. C1-90-686,C1-90-686 |
| Citation | 464 N.W.2d 540 |
| Parties | STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Leonard RICHARDS, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
Without showing the grand jury's independence was seriously undermined, an indictment will not be dismissed for alleged misuse of grand jury subpoena power. Further, mere speculation regarding the effects of preindictment publicity is insufficient as a matter of law to set aside an indictment.
John Stuart, State Public Defender, William Kennedy, Hennepin County Public Defender, Ann Remington, Asst. County Public Defender, Minneapolis, for appellant.
Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, Thomas L. Johnson, Hennepin Co. Atty., Lee W. Barry, Asst. Hennepin Co. Atty., Minneapolis, for respondent.
Considered and decided by FORSBERG, P.J., and NORTON and SHORT, JJ.
Leonard Richards was indicted by a Hennepin County grand jury with murder in the first degree for the death of his half-sister. On discretionary appeal from an order denying a motion to dismiss the indictment, Richards argues (1) the prosecution abused and usurped the subpoena powers of the grand jury, thereby depriving him of an independent grand jury, and (2) extensive prejudicial preindictment publicity rendered grand jury impartiality impossible. We disagree and affirm.
In 1982 the body of Richards' half-sister was found in the basement of a building allegedly leased by him. Richards was arrested as a suspect in the case, but was later released. Because the state believed there was a financial motive behind the murder, the prosecution issued grand jury subpoenas for the records of the victim's estate, two related trust accounts, Richards' bank accounts, various insurance policies, and records of corporations allegedly organized by Richards.
The state issued 93 grand jury subpoenas during 1982 and 1983. Most of these subpoenas had no headings or attendance dates. Recipients were directed to submit specified documents to a person in the county attorney's office. In 1984 a subpoena was served on one of Richards' former attorneys. The attorney objected to the subpoena because of facial deficiencies in the subpoena itself, and on grounds of attorney-client privilege. At a contempt hearing, a trial court declined to find the attorney in contempt for noncompliance with the subpoena because the subpoena was facially deficient. The court ruled all future grand jury subpoenas must have a proper heading, a provision for attendance before the grand jury, and a date for compliance. Thereafter, the state appeared before grand juries subsequently impaneled and asked for approval of grand jury subpoenas relating to its investigation. A total of over 300 grand jury subpoenas were issued during the seven-year investigation. In April of 1989, Richards was indicted for first degree murder.
I. Is misuse of the grand jury subpoena power so fundamental that a violation taints the indictment without a showing of prejudice?
II. Did the trial court err in failing to dismiss the indictment because of preindictment publicity?
Since colonial times, the grand jury has served two functions: as a "shield" between the government and the accused, and as a "sword" probing into the evidence of a crime. See Beale & Bryson, Grand Jury Law and Practice Sec. 1 (1986). In its screening function, a grand jury has the duty to hear evidence to determine whether there is probable cause to indict the accused. Minn.R.Crim.P. 18.06, subd. 2. However, a grand jury can also investigate crimes and has substantial powers for procuring evidence. Minn.R.Crim.P. 22. In either role, the grand jury must remain independent and cannot become an instrument of the prosecution.
A presumption of regularity attaches to grand jury indictments. State v. Inthavong, 402 N.W.2d 799, 801 (Minn.1987). However, some procedural protections are so fundamental that a violation destroys the independence of the grand jury and thus taints the indictment. See State v. Johnson, 441 N.W.2d 460, 463 (Minn.1989) (); Dwire v. State, 381 N.W.2d 871, 875 (Minn.App.1986) (), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Apr. 11, 1986). In these cases, the defendant need not show prejudice and the indictment must be dismissed.
Richards argues no specific showing of prejudice is required in cases involving misuse of grand jury subpoenas. We disagree. While it is undisputed subpoenas were improperly issued without headings or grand jury dates in 1982 and 1983, a trial court ordered the state to correct those deficiencies and comply with the requirements of Minn.R.Crim.P. 22. Following that order, the prosecution regularly appeared before successive grand juries to obtain approval for subpoenas. Ultimately, over 300 subpoenas were issued. While this seven-year investigation into Richards' financial situation may be unduly lengthy, the screening grand jury that eventually considered the evidence against Richards was unconnected to the investigating grand jury that approved the subpoenas. Under these circumstances, we cannot say there was an undermining of the indictment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Davis
...as a ‘shield’ between the government and the accused, and as a ‘sword’ probing into the evidence of a crime." State v. Richards , 464 N.W.2d 540, 541 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990). But "[w]here the king's grand juries had once colluded with the king's prosecutors, in pre-Revolutionary America, colo......
-
State v. Eibensteiner, No. A04-792.
...as a `shield' between the government and the accused, and as a `sword' probing into the evidence of a crime." State v. Richards, 464 N.W.2d 540, 541 (Minn.App.1990), review denied (Minn. Feb. 20, 1991). To facilitate its dual roles, the grand jury has broad-ranging power to procure evidence......
-
State v. Martin
...to offer. The grand jury has an investigative role that permits it, for example, to issue its own subpoenas. See State v. Richards, 464 N.W.2d 540, 541 (Minn.App.1990) (noting that grand jury has both a screening function and, in its function of investigating crimes, the power to obtain evi......