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

• On July 1, 2012, Amy Herrera's husband died from a gunshot wound at their home, initially considered a suicide but later treated as a homicide, leading to Herrera's indictment for second-degree murder. Before the grand jury, Herrera sought to present evidence of self-defense, including testimony about her husband's previous threats and an "escape plan" with a friend. The prosecuting attorney, however, limited the evidence presented to the grand jury and intervened during Herrera's testimony, particularly when she began to discuss her husband's past violence and her fear for her safety (paras 2-8).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner: Argued that the prosecuting attorney did not allow the grand jury to fully inquire into facts demonstrating probable cause, failed to act in a fair and impartial manner, and improperly instructed the grand jury to disregard her testimony (para 11).
• Respondent/Real Party in Interest: Contended that the petitioner was not entitled to relief as she failed to demonstrate prejudice or prosecutorial bad faith (para 11).

Legal Issues

• Whether the prosecuting attorney's conduct during the grand jury proceedings, including limiting evidence and intervening in the petitioner's testimony, violated the structural protections of the grand jury statutes, thereby warranting dismissal of the indictment (paras 12-14, 18-31).

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico issued a writ of mandamus directing the district court to dismiss the indictment without prejudice to the State’s right to bring new criminal charges against the petitioner (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court found that the prosecuting attorney interfered with the grand jury's duty to independently investigate facts relevant to probable cause by preventing the petitioner from answering a grand juror's question about past violence, which was pertinent to her defense. This action was deemed beyond the scope of a preliminary order that limited the evidence the prosecutor was required to present to the grand jury. The Court also held that the prosecuting attorney failed to maintain a fair and impartial stance when instructing the grand jury, particularly by suggesting that the petitioner's testimony was inappropriate and seeking sympathy. These actions compromised the structural integrity of the grand jury process and the grand jury's ability to make an independent determination of probable cause, leading to the decision to dismiss the indictment (paras 18-31).