State v. Wong2/22/2002
al conspiracy matter never should have been brought, including the overt acts. And the fact it was, in the Court's view, could easily have influenced the grand jury. And all the other reasons set forth in the moving papers. The circuit court denied reconsideration and the State appeals. Additional facts are set out below where necessary.
II. Standard of Review
The State contends the circuit court erred when it granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss the indictments.
An appellate court reviews a trial court's decision to dismiss an indictment for abuse of discretion. State v. Chong, 86 Hawaii 282, 288 n.2, 949 P.2d 122, 128 n.2 (1997). The trial court abuses its discretion when it clearly exceeds the bounds of reason or disregards rules or principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a party litigant. E.g., State v. Klinge, 92 Hawaii 577, 584, 994 P.2d 509, 516 (2000)(citations omitted). The burden of establishing abuse of discretion is on appellant, and a strong showing is required to establish it.E.g., State v. Kupihea, 80 Hawaii 307, 312, 909 P.2d 1122, 1127 (1996) (citation omitted).
III. Discussion
A grand jury is a constituent part of the court or branch of a court having general criminal jurisdiction. In re Moe, 62 Haw. 613, 616, 617 P.2d 1222, 1224 (1980). The circuit court has supervisory power over grand jury proceedings to insure the integrity of the grand jury process and the proper administration of justice. Id.; Cf. United States v. Williams, 112 S.Ct. 1735, 1742, 504 U.S. 36, 47 (1992) (United States Supreme Court concluded the federal grand jury "belongs to no branch of the institutional Government" and that "its institutional relationship with the [federal] Judicial Branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm's length").
This court recently "reaffirm the principle that prosecutorial conduct that undermines the fundamental fairness and integrity of the grand jury process by 'invad the province of the grand jury or tend to induce action other than that which the jurors in their uninfluenced judgment deem warranted on the evidence fairly presented before them,' [State v.] Joao, 53 Haw. at 229, 491 P.2d P.2d at 1091 . . . is presumptively prejudicial." State v. Chong, 86 Hawaii 282, 284, 949 P.2d 122, 124 (1997). This court explicitly stated that Justice Kidwell's concurrence in State v. Bell, 60 Haw. 241, 589 P.2d 517 (1978),
. . . accurately distilled Joao's relative place within "the criteria which should govern" the grant or denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment: ... grand jury proceeding is not adversary in nature. An application of this principle is found in the rule that an indictment may not be attacked on the ground of the incompetency of the evidence considered by the grand jury, where prosecutorial misconduct is not involved. State v. Layton, 53 Haw. 513, 497 P.2d 559 (1972); United States v. Calendar, 414 U.S. 338, 94 S.C. 613, 38 LED.2d 561 (1974). The function of a grand jury to protect against unwarranted prosecution does not entail a duty to weigh the prosecution's case against that of the defense, or even to determine that the prosecution's case is supported by competent evidence. On the other hand, an indictment that is the result of prosecutorial misconduct or other circumstances which prevent the exercise of fairness and impartiality by the grand jury may be successfully attacked. State v. Joao, 53 Haw. 226, 491 P.2d 1089 (1971); State v. Pacific Concrete and Rock Co., 57 Haw. 574, 560 P.2d 1309 (1977). Bell, 60 Haw. at 256-57, 589 P.2d at 526 (Kidwell, J., concurring) (emphasis added).
State v. Chong, 86 Hawaii 282,288-9, 949 P.2d 122, 12
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Hawaii Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|