{ "id": 2838221, "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sam HILL, Jr., Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Hill", "decision_date": "1975-07-23", "docket_number": "No. 1706", "first_page": "216", "last_page": "220", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "88 N.M. 216" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "539 P.2d 236" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.M. Ct. App.", "id": 9025, "name": "Court of Appeals of New Mexico" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 52, "name_long": "New Mexico", "name": "N.M." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "14 A.2d 907", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.2d", "year": 1940, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "141 Pa.Super. 107", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pa. Super.", "case_ids": [ 1027582 ], "year": 1940, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/pa-super/141/0107-01" ] }, { "cite": "157 S.W.2d 921", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 10226097 ], "year": 1942, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/sw2d/157/0921-01" ] }, { "cite": "143 Tex.Cr.R. 143", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Tex. Crim.", "case_ids": [ 5285523 ], "year": 1942, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/tex-crim/143/0143-01" ] }, { "cite": "220 So.2d 289", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "So. 2d", "case_ids": [ 9797009 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "290" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/so2d/220/0289-01" ] }, { "cite": "22 L.Ed. 2d 453", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "89 S.Ct. 1196", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "394 U.S. 920", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6207236, 6206954, 6206700, 6207789, 6206447, 6207573 ], "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/394/0920-04", "/us/394/0920-03", "/us/394/0920-02", "/us/394/0920-06", "/us/394/0920-01", "/us/394/0920-05" ] }, { "cite": "406 F.2d 757", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 2117290 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/406/0757-01" ] }, { "cite": "4 A.L.R.2d 392", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 2d", "year": 1949, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "418" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "5 Okl.Cr. 581", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Okla. Crim.", "case_ids": [ 8745063 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1911, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/okla-crim/5/0581-01" ] }, { "cite": "114 P. 343", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "case_ids": [ 8743080, 8743233 ], "year": 1911, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/okla-crim/5/0266-01", "/okla-crim/5/0295-01" ] }, { "cite": "5 Okl.Cr. 266", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Okla. Crim.", "case_ids": [ 8743080 ], "year": 1911, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/okla-crim/5/0266-01" ] }, { "cite": "55 N.D. 437", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.D.", "case_ids": [ 2362448 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1927, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nd/55/0437-01" ] }, { "cite": "124 Mont. 249", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mont.", "case_ids": [ 5145538 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1950, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mont/124/0249-01" ] }, { "cite": "72 N.Y.S. 449", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.S.", "case_ids": [ 7703889 ], "year": 1901, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nys/72/0449-01" ] }, { "cite": "36 Misc. 40", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Misc.", "case_ids": [ 1805028 ], "year": 1901, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/misc/36/0040-01" ] }, { "cite": "104 Miss. 602", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Miss.", "case_ids": [ 1446694 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1913, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/miss/104/0602-01" ] }, { "cite": "94 So.2d 25", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "So. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5433559, 9892159 ], "year": 1957, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/la/232/0183-01", "/so2d/94/0025-01" ] }, { "cite": "232 La. 184", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "La.", "case_ids": [ 9892159, 5433559 ], "year": 1957, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/so2d/94/0025-01", "/la/232/0183-01" ] }, { "cite": "215 N.W.2d 249", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 10731499 ], "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nw2d/215/0249-01" ] }, { "cite": "226 F. 420", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.", "case_ids": [ 6739232 ], "year": 1915, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f/226/0420-01" ] }, { "cite": "116 F.Supp. 817", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F. Supp.", "case_ids": [ 4236743 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f-supp/116/0817-01" ] }, { "cite": "169 F.Supp. 366", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F. Supp.", "case_ids": [ 443387 ], "year": 1959, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f-supp/169/0366-01" ] }, { "cite": "324 F.Supp. 123", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F. Supp.", "case_ids": [ 3233578 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f-supp/324/0123-01" ] }, { "cite": "347 F.Supp. 743", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F. Supp.", "case_ids": [ 3534117 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f-supp/347/0743-01" ] }, { "cite": "316 F.Supp. 1148", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F. Supp.", "case_ids": [ 3144697 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f-supp/316/1148-01" ] }, { "cite": "89 Nev. 382", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Nev.", "case_ids": [ 4874161 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nev/89/0382-01" ] }, { "cite": "80 F. 374", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.", "case_ids": [ 1640541 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f/80/0374-01" ] }, { "cite": "86 N.M. 383", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2823043 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/86/0383-01" ] }, { "cite": "6 Ariz.App. 436", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ariz. App.", "case_ids": [ 1237847 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ariz-app/6/0436-01" ] }, { "cite": "338 N.Y.S.2d 132", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.S.2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "72 Misc.2d 90", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Misc. 2d", "case_ids": [ 1255566 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/misc2d/72/0090-01" ] }, { "cite": "28 F.2d 424", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1731471 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/28/0424-01" ] }, { "cite": "10 Okl.Cr. 28", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Okla. Crim.", "case_ids": [ 8741872 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1913, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "86" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/okla-crim/10/0028-01" ] }, { "cite": "88 A.L.R. 886", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R.", "year": 1933, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "166 A. 45", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.", "year": 1933, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "164 Md. 558", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Md.", "case_ids": [ 2194988 ], "year": 1933, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/md/164/0558-01" ] }, { "cite": "510 S.W.2d 298", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 8724417 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "299" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/256/0716-01" ] }, { "cite": "123 N.E. 100", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "232 Mass. 601", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "case_ids": [ 61252 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mass/232/0601-01" ] }, { "cite": "4 A.L.R. 2d 386", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 2d", "year": 1947, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "391" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "73 N.E.2d 529", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1947, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "533" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "296 N.Y. 315", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "case_ids": [ 2069573 ], "year": 1947, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ny/296/0315-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 702, "char_count": 11867, "ocr_confidence": 0.793, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.1350546616820885e-07, "percentile": 0.9109446149177037 }, "sha256": "0be0653b694f11914bb1e819c5f2afa9218da76580ab18b1edace6782ef347a9", "simhash": "1:3e64e7f2f11c848b", "word_count": 1955 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:34:46.516747+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "HENDLEY and HERNANDEZ, JJ., concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sam HILL, Jr., Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nSUTIN, Judge.\nDefendant was convicted of involuntary manslaughter. Section 40A-2-3(B), N.M. S.A. 1953 (2d Repl. Vol. 6). He appeals. We reverse.\nA. Presence and participation of private prosecutor in grand jury proceeding is reversible error.\nThe indictment was returned on January 9, 1974. On the opening day of trial, defendant announced that it had been called to his attention that the person presenting the matter to the grand jury was Don J. Wilson, the special prosecutor. He moved to dismiss the indictment because Mr. Wilson was not permitted by law to be in the grand jury room. The motion was denied.\nDefendant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to dismiss the indictment. We agree. This contention involves three issues: (1) Was Mr. Wilson lawfully authorized to present the facts to the grand jury? (2) Did a conflict of interest render his participation in the presentment unlawful? (3) Must defendant show that Wilson\u2019s participation prejudiced defendant\u2019s case? These are all matters of first impression in New Mexico.\nTwo hours before the return of the indictment, the district attorney appointed Mr. Wilson \u201cas associate counsel to assist the District Attorney in prosecution of\u201d the instant case. At the same time, the trial judge signed an order directing that such appointment take place. Mr. Wilson testified that he helped the district attorney present the case to the grand jury. In addition, he testified that at the time of the presentment, he was employed on a fee basis, not by the State, but by L. M. Miski-men, father-in-law of the deceased.\n(1) Mr. Wilson was not lavufully authorized to aid in presenting the facts to the grand jury.\nSection 41-5-4, N.M.S.A. 1953 (2d Repl. Vol. 6) relates to the time and place of a grand jury hearing. It provides in part as follows:\nAll taking of testimony will be in private with no persons present other than the grand jury and the persons required or entitled to assist the grand jury, including the district attorney and the attorney general and their staffs, interpreters, court reporters and the witness. [Emphasis added]\nThe purpose of this section is to maintain the utmost se'crecy. People v. Minet, 296 N.Y. 315, 73 N.E.2d 529, 533, 4 A.L.R. 2d 386, 391 (1947) quotes the following from In Matter of Opinion of Justices, 232 Mass. 601, 123 N.E. 100:\nThe grand jury is an ancient institution. It has always been venerated and highly prized in this country. It has been regarded as the shield of innocence against the plottings of private malice, as the defense of the weak against the oppression of political power, and as the guard of the liberties of the people against the encroachments of unfounded accusations from any source. These blessings accrue from the grand jury because its proceedings are secret and uninfluenced by the presence of those not officially and necessarily connected with it. It has been the practice for more than two hundred years for its investigations to be in private, except that the district attorney and his assistant are present.\nSecrecy is the vital requisite of grand jury procedure. [Emphasis added]\nIn Moseley v. State, 510 S.W.2d 298, 299 (Ark.1974) the court said:\nThe statute contemplates that the prosecuting attorney will assist the grand jury . . .. The prosecuting attorney, however, does not appear before the grand jury as a partisan, bent upon obtaining an indictment. [Emphasis added]\nMr. Wilson\u2019s interest in having the grand jury return an indictment against defendant is obvious. He had no reason to be impartial and could hardly have been impartial. He once served as an assistant district attorney. We presume he knew about \u00a7 41-5-4, supra. This would have suggested to Mr. Wilson that his appearance and participation in the grand jury proceedings was improper.\nThe State argues that Mr. Wilson was a member of the district attorney\u2019s staff, authorized by \u00a7 41-5-4, supra, to present the facts to a grand jury. The State relies on \u00a7 17-1-12, N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl. Vol. 4). In pertinent part, it states:\nNo one shall represent the state In any matter in which said state ... is interested except the . district attorney or his legally appointed and qualified assistants, and such associate counsel as may appear on order of the court, with the consent of the . . . district attorney. [Emphasis added].\nMr. Wilson was not appointed to the district attorney\u2019s staff. The trial judge ordered only that Mr. Wilson assist the district attorney in prosecution of the case. The prosecution of a case does not begin until after the return of the indictment. Section 41-23-5, N.M.S.A. 1953 (2d Repl. Vol. 6, 1973 Supp.). See, \u201cprosecution\u201d, Black\u2019s Law Dictionary (Rev. 4th Ed. 1968) at 1385.\nMr. Wilson\u2019s presence and participation in the grand jury hearing was unlawful, in violation of \u00a7 41-5-4, supra. Coblentz v. State, 164 Md. 558, 166 A. 45, 88 A.L.R. 886 (1933); Viers v. State, 10 Okl.Cr. 28, 134 P. 80 (1913); United States v. Goldman, 28 F.2d 424 (D.C.Conn.1928).\n. [I]t is highly improper for counsel employed to prosecute a case to be permitted to go into the grand jury room where the defendant cannot be heard and has no one to represent him. This duty should be performed alone by the proper officer of the law. Viers, supra, 134 P. at 86.\n(2) A conflict of interest existed which compromised the impartiality of the grand jury proceedings.\nMr. Wilson testified that he had been retained for a fee paid by the father-in-law of the deceased. Under the indictment returned, he represented private interests against the defendants. His mere presence in the grand jury proceedings involved a conflict of interest which invalidated the indictment. Coblentz v. State, supra.\nThe prosecutor himself is unauthorized to appear before the grand jury if there is a conflict of interest (1) in which his own property is damaged by criminal mischief, People v. Krstovich, 72 Misc.2d 90, 338 N.Y.S.2d 132 (1972), or (2) arising from prior employment with the defendant, Corbin v. Broadman, 6 Ariz.App. 436, 433 P.2d 289 (1967). From authorities cited, it is generally stated that the prosecutor is a public officer with duties quasi-judicial in nature. His obligation is to protect not only the public interest but also the rights of the accused. In the performance of his duties he must not only be disinterested and impartial but must also appear to be so. It is not necessary that his participation be corrupt or that he use unfair tactics. Public confidence in the office in the exercise of broad powers demands that there be no conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict.\nThe same rule applies in the actual trial of a case where an assistant district attorney had represented the defendant prior to trial. State v. Chambers, 86 N.M. 383, 524 P.2d 999 (Ct.App.1974). Logic demands that it is unwise for the prosecutor to act in a less disinterested manner in his role during a grand jury hearing.\nThe law protects the fairness and impartiality of the grand jury hearing. Not only must there be no improper influence exercised, there must be no opportunity for improper influence on the grand jury. Moseley, supra; United States v. Edgerton, 80 F. 374 (D.C.Mont.1897). The prosecutor must scrupulously refrain from words or conduct that may influence the decision of the grand jury. Franklin v. State, 89 Nev. 382, 513 P.2d 1252 (1973). He must observe limits of essential fairness in his work before grand juries. United States v. Sweig, 316 F.Supp. 1148 (D.C.N.Y.1970).\nWe hold that Mr. Wilson\u2019s presentment of the facts to the grand jury involved a conflict of interest which compromised the impartiality of the grand jury proceedings.\n(3) No prejudice to the defendant need be shown. Prejudice is presumed.\nRule 6(d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A.Fed.R. Crim.P. 6(d) (1969), is similar to \u00a7 41-5-4, supra, of the New Mexico statutes. Under Rule 6(d), it has been held consistently that a showing of prejudice is not required when an unauthorized person is present, in order to have the indictment quashed. Prejudice is presumed. United States v. Isaacs, 347 F.Supp. 743 (N.D.Ill.1972); United States v. Bowdach, 324 F.Supp. 123 (S.D.Fla.1971); United States v. Borys, 169 F.Supp. 366 (D.Alaska 1959); United States v. Carper, 116 F.Supp. 817 (D.D.C.1953) Latham v. United States, 226 F. 420 (5th Cir. 1915); C. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure, \u00a7 105 (1969) at 168-69.\nLikewise, the state courts have held that presence of an unauthorized person before the grand jury requires dismissal of the indictment, without the necessity of showing prejudice. People v. Minet, supra; State v. Hansen, 215 N.W.2d 249 (Iowa 1974); State v. Revere, 232 La. 184, 94 So.2d 25 (1957).\nThe presence and participation in grand jury proceedings of a person assuming the role of a private prosecutor, retained by outside interests for the purpose of obtaining an indictment against particular individuals, is generally considered highly improper.\n38 Am.Jur.2d Grand Jury \u00a7 35.\nThis rule is supported by Collier v. State, 104 Miss. 602, 61 So. 689 (1913); People v. Scannell, 36 Misc. 40, 72 N.Y.S. 449 (1901); State v. District Court of First Judicial Dist., 124 Mont. 249, 220 P.2d 1035 (1950); State v. Johnson, 55 N.D. 437, 214 N.W. 39 (1927); Hartgraves v. State, 5 Okl.Cr. 266, 114 P. 343 (1911); State v. Maben, 5 Okl.Cr. 581, 114 P. 1122 (1911); Corbin v. Broadman, supra; Annot., Presence in grand jury room of person other than grand juror as affecting indictment, 4 A.L.R.2d 392, 418 (1949).\nIn contending that the defendant must prove that he was prejudiced by Mr. Wilson\u2019s participation in the grand jury proceedings, the State relies on United States v. Rath, 406 F.2d 757 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 920, 89 S.Ct. 1196, 22 L.Ed. 2d 453 (1969); Case v. State, 220 So.2d 289 (Miss.1969); Jackson v. State, 143 Tex.Cr.R. 143, 157 S.W.2d 921 (1942); Commonwealth v. Brownmiller, 141 Pa.Super. 107, 14 A.2d 907 (1940).\nThese cases are all distinguishable. Rath involved a technical violation, a fifteen to twenty second interruption of grand jury proceedings by an attorney who inadvertently entered the room. Case involved a law enforcement officer, not a private prosecuting attorney. In dictum, the court said: \u201cIt is improper for a private prosecuting attorney to go before the grand jury.\u201d 220 So.2d at 290. Jackson did not involve participation of a private prosecuting attorney in grand jury proceedings, but rather involved defendant\u2019s wife, who, from all that appears in the opinion, actually gave testimony. In Brownmiller the special assistant prosecutors were appointed by the court at the request of the state\u2019s attorney due to the complex nature of the case (misconduct in public office) and the lack of staff.\nNone of these cases required the defendant to prove prejudicial error.\n(4) Conclusion As To The Grand Jury Proceedings.\nMr. Wilson\u2019s participation in the grand jury proceedings was not lawfully authorized. His compensation by the deceased\u2019s father-in-law gave rise to a conflict of interest. These reasons require that the indictment be quashed without proof of prejudice by defendant.\nB. We need not decide other claims of error raised by defendant.\nIf the State proceeds with a new indictment, the additional points may or may not be raised in the second trial. Therefore, we decline to review them.\nReversed.\nDefendant is discharged.\nHENDLEY and HERNANDEZ, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "SUTIN, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Mary C. Walters, Marchiondo & Berry, P. A., Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant.", "Toney Anaya, Atty. Gen., Prentis Reid Griffith, Jr., Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Andrea Buzzard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "539 P.2d 236\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sam HILL, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 1706.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nJuly 23, 1975.\nMary C. Walters, Marchiondo & Berry, P. A., Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant.\nToney Anaya, Atty. Gen., Prentis Reid Griffith, Jr., Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Andrea Buzzard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee." }, "file_name": "0216-01", "first_page_order": 246, "last_page_order": 250 }