Summary
The Arizona Supreme Court held that the State violated the defendant’s substantial procedural rights during a grand jury proceeding by presenting misleading testimony, interfering with the grand jury’s questioning, and failing to provide pertinent instructions concerning the defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights. The court vacated the court of appeals’ decision, reversed the superior court, and remanded for a redetermination of probable cause.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether misleading testimony by the State's witness, combined with prosecutorial interference with grand-jury questioning and the omission of instructions concerning the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights, denied Maretick a substantial procedural right to a fair and impartial grand-jury proceeding.
- Whether the errors in the grand-jury presentation were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Whether the appropriate remedy was a redetermination of probable cause rather than dismissal with prejudice.
Holdings
- The combination of the detective's misleading testimony, the prosecutor's interference with the grand jury's independent questioning, and the failure to instruct the grand jurors regarding Maretick's Fifth Amendment rights denied Maretick due process and a substantial procedural right to a fair and impartial grand-jury proceeding.
- The State failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the errors had no influence on the grand jury's decision; therefore, the errors were not harmless.
- Dismissal with prejudice was not warranted because the record did not establish the type of consistent or egregious prosecutorial misconduct necessary for that remedy.
Key quotations
“The prosecutor acts not simply as an advocate, but as a “minister of justice,” who assists the jurors in their inquiry.” (204 Ariz. at 193)
“The facts make this case similar to Crimmins, in which this court found a denial of due process leading to an order for remand.” (204 Ariz. at 194)
“The servants of the law whose conduct we examine here interfered with the grand jury’s inquiry and in doing so denied Maretick’s substantial procedural rights.” (204 Ariz. at 195)
Factual background
On April 12, 2001, Scott Maretick lost control of his Corvette in Scottsdale while allegedly traveling approximately 100 miles per hour; the crash killed his wife and severely injured him. Maretick suffered permanent cognitive deficits and had no memory of the accident or the events immediately afterward. At the grand-jury proceeding, the State presented only a police detective, who testified that Maretick had made a nearly full recovery despite knowing of his continuing and possibly permanent brain damage. When a grand juror asked whether Maretick had made any statements to police, the prosecutor interrupted and prevented the detective from answering, and the grand jury returned a manslaughter indictment.
Procedural history
A grand jury indicted Maretick for manslaughter after hearing testimony from a police detective. Maretick moved in superior court for a redetermination of probable cause, arguing that misleading testimony, prosecutorial interference with grand-jury questioning, and the failure to instruct the grand jury concerning his Fifth Amendment rights denied him a substantial procedural right. The superior court denied the motion, and a divided court of appeals affirmed. The Arizona Supreme Court granted review, vacated the court of appeals' opinion, reversed the superior court, and remanded for a redetermination of probable cause.
Remand instructions
Vacate the court of appeals' opinion, reverse the superior court's denial of Maretick's motion, and conduct a redetermination of probable cause before an independent grand jury.