AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Defendants Darcie Pareo and Calvin Pareo were indicted by a grand jury on multiple counts including fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, forgery, racketeering, and conspiracy to commit racketeering. Prior to the grand jury proceeding, the Defendants expressed their desire to testify before the grand jury and were present and ready to do so. However, the prosecutor informed the grand jury of the Defendants' presence and desire to testify but did not inform the grand jury that the Defendants had a right to testify. Consequently, the grand jury decided not to hear the Defendants' testimony and proceeded to indict them (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Roosevelt County: The indictments against Defendants were quashed because they were not allowed to testify before the grand jury, despite their presence and desire to do so (para 2).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State): Argued that under Jones v. Murdoch, the prosecutor assisting the grand jury was not required to present Defendants’ testimony to the grand jury but only had to alert the grand jury to the Defendants’ desire to testify. It was within the grand jury’s discretion to decide whether or not to hear it (paras 9, 15-18).
• Defendants-Appellees: Argued that their right to testify before the grand jury was violated, asserting that they had a statutory right to testify, which was not honored, and that they were not required to demonstrate prejudice to have the indictments quashed (paras 3, 13, 15).

Legal Issues

• Whether Defendants had a statutory right to testify before the grand jury that indicted them.
• Whether the Defendants' right to testify was violated.
• Whether Defendants had to demonstrate prejudice to have the indictments quashed.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order quashing the indictments, holding that Defendants had a statutory right to testify before the grand jury, that their right to do so was violated, and that the failure to allow them to exercise that right was a structural error requiring no showing of prejudice (para 1).

Reasons

• KIEHNE, Judge (with LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge, and MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge concurring): The Court concluded that Section 31-6-11(C)(3) and (4) provide grand jury targets a right to testify before a grand jury, and that the Defendants were deprived of this right when the prosecutor failed to inform the grand jury that Defendants had a right to testify. The Court distinguished this case from Jones v. Murdoch, clarifying that the statute provides a target with the power to choose whether to testify, which does not grant the grand jury the power to decline to hear a target’s testimony. The Court also determined that the Defendants' challenge was a structural one, meaning they were not required to demonstrate prosecutorial bad faith or prejudice. The Court's decision allows for the possibility of the State presenting its case against Defendants to another grand jury, provided that if Defendants still wish to testify, the State must inform the grand jury of their right to do so (paras 4-20).