Summary
The Utah Supreme Court held that it had jurisdiction under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 65B to review a statewide grand jury panel’s decision through an extraordinary writ. The court concluded that determining whether to summon a grand jury is a judicial function and that the applicable standard of review is abuse of discretion. It denied the State’s petition, finding that the panel had not abused its discretion in determining that good cause to summon a grand jury was absent.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Utah Supreme Court had jurisdiction under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 65B(d) to review the grand jury panel's good-cause determination under Utah Code section 77-10a-2(3).
- Whether the panel's decision should be reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- Whether the panel misinterpreted the statutory good-cause standard by failing to defer sufficiently to prosecutorial discretion.
- Whether the panel relied on legally inappropriate factors or impermissible personal bias in denying the request.
Holdings
- The Utah Supreme Court has jurisdiction under its extraordinary-writ authority and Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 65B(d) to review the decision of the grand jury panel because the panel exercises a judicial function and no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy is available.
- A grand jury panel's decision whether good cause exists to summon a grand jury is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- The statutory good-cause standard does not make summoning a grand jury largely a matter of prosecutorial discretion. The panel must independently determine whether good cause exists to believe that a grand jury is necessary, with only slight deference to the prosecutor's request.
- The panel may consider factors beyond the single factor expressly identified in the statute, including relevant personal experience, so long as the factors are reasonably calculated to serve the purposes of the grand jury statute and the interests of justice. The panel may not act on personal dislike of a prosecutor or other improper considerations.
Key quotations
“But when we review the panel’s decision in this case, we find the state’s allegations to be without merit. The panel did not abuse its discretion, and we therefore deny the state’s petition for extraordinary relief.” (¶ 4)
“But in both cases, the panel must exercise its independent judgment and “find[] good cause” to believe a grand jury is needed.” (¶ 38)
“The prosecution should not be able to grant itself these powers at will, so our law requires judges to act as a check on the executive’s desire to summon grand juries.” (¶ 48)
“The legislature gave that power to the panel, not to us, and we will not arrogate it to ourselves.” (¶ 50)
Factual background
The Salt Lake County District Attorney submitted a certification and statement of facts requesting that a grand jury be summoned. A statewide panel of five district judges held a hearing and determined that the State had not established good cause to summon a grand jury. The panel's hearing was secret, and the Supreme Court considered only the information made public for purposes of the litigation.
Procedural history
In October 2013, the Salt Lake County District Attorney requested that a grand jury be summoned. The panel found that the State had not established good cause and denied the request. The State filed a petition for extraordinary relief in the Utah Supreme Court in December 2013. The Supreme Court held that it had jurisdiction to review the panel's decision but denied relief because the panel did not abuse its discretion.