Summary
The Alaska Supreme Court held that, under Alaska Criminal Rules 6(i) and 6(p), a prosecutor must inform the grand jury when an accused clearly and unconditionally requests to testify. The grand jury retains discretion whether to call the accused, but the prosecutor must provide the information and advise the jury of its authority to hear the testimony. Because the prosecutor failed to do so, the court reversed the court of appeals, reinstated the superior court's judgment, and dismissed Cameron's indictment.
Holdings
- Under Alaska Criminal Rule 6(p), the prosecutor must inform the grand jury whenever the accused clearly and unconditionally indicates to the State a desire to testify before the grand jury, and must remind the grand jury that it has authority to call the accused as a witness.
- The prosecutor's failure to inform the grand jury of Cameron's request to testify was not harmless, so Cameron's indictment had to be vacated and dismissed.
Questions Presented
- Whether the Alaska Criminal Rules require a prosecutor who knows that an accused clearly and unconditionally wishes to testify before the grand jury to inform the grand jury of that request.
- Whether the prosecutor's failure to inform the grand jury of Cameron's request required dismissal or vacation of the indictment.
Disposition
reversed
Cases Cited (13)
- Webb v. State, 580 P.2d 295 (Alaska 1978)(distinguished)
- Frink v. State, 597 P.2d 154 (Alaska 1979)(followed)
- Coleman v. State, 553 P.2d 40 (Alaska 1976)(followed)
- State v. Gieffels, 554 P.2d 460 (Alaska 1976)(followed)
- Preston v. State, 615 P.2d 594 (Alaska 1980)(followed)
- United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (1974)(followed)
- James v. State, 84 P.3d 404 (Alaska 2004)(followed)
- Martin v. Martin, 52 P.3d 724 (Alaska 2002)(followed)
- Alderman v. Iditarod Props., Inc., 32 P.3d 373 (Alaska 2001)(followed)
- Guin v. Ha, 591 P.2d 1281 (Alaska 1979)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 13.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…