SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA
En Banc
SCOTT MITCHELL MARETICK, ) Arizona Supreme Court
) No. CV-02-0253-SA
Petitioner,)
)
v. ) Court of Appeals
) Division One
HON. BARBARA JARRETT, JUDGE OF ) No. 1 CA-SA 02-0116
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE )
OF ARIZONA, in and for the ) Maricopa County
County of Maricopa, ) Superior Court
) No. CR 01-097802
Respondent Judge,)
)
STATE OF ARIZONA, )
) O P I N I O N
Real Party in Interest.)
)
Special Action from the Superior Court of Maricopa County
The Honorable Barbara M. Jarrett, Judge
REVERSED AND REMANDED
Court of Appeals, Division One
Decision Order
VACATED
QUARLES & BRADY STREICH LANG, L.L.P. Phoenix
by Darrow K. Soll
Attorneys for Petitioner
RICHARD M. ROMLEY, MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY Phoenix
by Arthur G. Hazelton, Jr., Deputy County Attorney
and Michael G. Denney, Deputy County Attorney
Attorneys for Real Party in Interest
B E R C H, Justice
¶1 Petitioner brings this special action to determine
whether the trial court abused its discretion or acted capriciously
or arbitrarily in denying his motion for redetermination of the
probable cause underlying a manslaughter indictment handed down by
a grand jury. A divided panel of the court of appeals affirmed the
trial court’s decision. We hold that the denial of Petitioner’s
motion was an abuse of discretion and we remand for a
redetermination of probable cause.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 Petitioner Scott Maretick was severely injured and his
wife was killed when he lost control of his car and crashed on
Frank Lloyd Wright Boulevard in Scottsdale on April 12, 2001.
Petitioner’s Corvette was allegedly traveling at approximately 100
miles per hour just before the impact.
¶3 Maretick was unconscious at the scene of the accident.
His injuries included brain trauma resulting in “permanent
cognitive deficit with particular deficit in short-term memory.”
As a result of his injuries, Maretick was never able to provide
investigators with a statement regarding the events leading up to
the accident. There are indications that Maretick will never
remember the accident or the events immediately following.
¶4 On December 18, 2001, the State convened a grand jury to
determine whether probable cause existed to charge Maretick with
manslaughter. The State presented only one witness, Scottsdale
Police Detective Sean Twitchell. Following the prosecutor’s brief
-2-
examination of the detective regarding the accident, Twitchell was
asked a series of questions by the members of the grand jury. The
pertinent portion of the grand jury transcript follows:
Grand Juror: What is his [Maretick’s] health,
his status now?
Detective Twitchell: Last time I checked, he
made pretty much a full recovery.
Grand Juror: Have you spoken with him and
asked him why he was traveling like that?
Prosecutor (to Detective Twitchell): You have
received no statements; is that correct?
Detective Twitchell: That’s correct.
Grand Juror: Does he have any story to - -
Prosecutor (to juror): He [Detective
Twitchell] has received no statements.
Grand Juror: I’m sorry.
Prosecutor: Any other questions?
Prosecutor (to Detective Twitchell): There
being no further questions, you may be
excused.
Following the proceeding, the grand jury returned an indictment for
manslaughter against Maretick.
¶5 Maretick filed a motion in superior court requesting a
redetermination of probable cause, arguing that he “was denied his
right to have the State present evidence to the grand jury in a
fair and impartial manner, and was denied substantial due process
in having an indictment returned against him with the use of
misleading testimony.” His motion contained three arguments:
-3-
First, he argued that Detective Twitchell knew that his injuries
were severe and ongoing,1 and therefore the detective was not
truthful when he testified that Maretick had fully recovered.
Second, he contended that the prosecutor was not fair and impartial
when he impeded the grand juror’s questions regarding any
statements Maretick made to police. Maretick maintains that the
manner in which the prosecutor spoke intimidated the grand juror
into apologizing for asking the question. Maretick argued that by
this conduct, the prosecutor interfered with the grand jury’s
attempt to investigate his case, which violated his right to have
the grand jury operate independently of the prosecutor. Third,
Maretick contended that the detective’s false representation
regarding his health, “coupled with the State’s failure to reveal
why Detective Twitchell ‘received no statements’ from Mr.
Maretick,” gave the grand jury the impression that he refused to
testify for fear of self-incrimination. He argued that this course
of conduct violated his Fifth Amendment right to be free from
compelled self-incrimination. As a result, Maretick claimed that
the State should have given an instruction advising the jurors of
his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and that any decision to
1
Maretick bases this contention upon the affidavit of his
daughter, Angela Maretick. In that affidavit, Angela stated that
Officer Twitchell contacted her less than a month before the grand
jury hearing in an attempt to question Maretick about the accident.
Angela avows that she told Detective Twitchell that Maretick’s
injuries were long term, that he suffered from permanent brain
damage, and that he had no memory of the accident.
-4-
exercise that right could not be held against him.
¶6 The trial judge agreed that the detective’s testimony was
misleading.2 The court was also troubled by the prosecutor’s
conduct,3 but denied the motion, finding that the misleading
testimony and questionable prosecutorial conduct were collateral to
the issues of probable cause and, therefore, Maretick suffered no
prejudice. A divided panel of the court of appeals affirmed the
ruling.
¶7 This court has jurisdiction under Article 6, Section 5(1)
of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Rules of Procedure for
Special Actions 8(b). See Crimmins v. Superior Court, 137 Ariz.
39, 40, 668 P.2d 882, 883 (1983). Although this court normally
reviews decisions in special action cases by petition for review,
we will grant review if exceptional circumstances render that
process inadequate. Ariz. R.P. Spec. Act. 8(b). We find that to
be the situation here and therefore grant review. We do so because
an indictment may be challenged only through interlocutory
2
The State has not contended that the detective’s
testimony was other than misleading.
3
In her minute entry, the judge explained that “it is
unclear to the Court why the prosecutor felt it necessary to
interrupt the grand juror repeatedly as she attempted to ask
questions of the detective, and to answer the questions for
him . . . . It may be that the prosecutor was concerned that an
element of sympathy for Defendant might have arisen if the
detective was allowed to fully respond to the grand juror’s
inquiries, as the Grand Jury would have then been made aware of
Defendant’s current medical condition.”
-5-
proceedings. Moreover, and more importantly, we do so to stress
the unique trust vested in prosecutors in their role as “ministers
of justice” when assisting the grand jury in its function. See
Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 42, ER 3.8 cmt.
DISCUSSION
I. THE GRAND JURY
¶8 The Supreme Court has described the grand jury as “a
primary security to the innocent against hasty, malicious and
oppressive persecution; it serves the invaluable function in our
society of standing between the accuser and the accused . . . to
determine whether a charge is founded upon reason or was dictated
by an intimidating power or by malice or ill will.” Wood v.
Georgia, 370 U.S. 375, 390 (1962). The grand jury’s mission is “to
bring to trial those who may be guilty and clear the innocent.”
Marston’s Inc. v. Strand, 114 Ariz. 260, 264, 560 P.2d 778, 782
(1977). To do its job effectively, the grand jury must receive a
fair and impartial presentation of the evidence. Crimmins, 137
Ariz. at 41, 668 P.2d at 884; State v. Emery, 131 Ariz. 493, 506,
642 P.2d 838, 851 (1982). Because defendants enjoy few procedural
rights before the grand jury, grand juries must be unbiased and
independent and must act “independently of either prosecutor or
judge.” Marston’s, 114 Ariz. at 264, 560 P.2d at 782.
¶9 Grand jurors have a right to hear all relevant, non-
protected evidence that bears on the case. See id. Thus, if the
-6-
grand jurors have reasonable ground to believe that other available
evidence “will explain away the contemplated charge, they may
require the evidence to be produced.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 21-412
(2002); see also Crimmins, 137 Ariz. at 44, 668 P.2d at 887
(Feldman, J., specially concurring).
II. THE PROSECUTOR’S ROLE
¶10 The prosecutor’s role before the grand jury is unique in
our system. The prosecutor acts not simply as an advocate, but as
a “minister of justice,” who assists the jurors in their inquiry.
See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 42, ER 3.8 cmt. Prosecutors bear a
“particularly weighty duty not to influence the jury because the
defendant has no representative to watch out for his interests”
before the grand jury. State v. Hocker, 113 Ariz. 450, 454, 556
P.2d 784, 788 (1976), disapproved on other grounds, State v.
Jarzab, 123 Ariz. 308, 311, 599 P.2d 761, 764 (1979). The
prosecutor therefore “must not take advantage of his or her role as
the ex parte representative of the state before the grand jury to
unduly or unfairly influence it.” 1 ABA Standards for Criminal
Justice, Ch. 3, Std. 3-3.5 cmt. (2d ed. 1980). Indeed, the
prosecutor must “give due deference to [the grand jury’s] status as
an independent legal body.” Id. Significantly, the initiation and
control of questioning “rests with the grand jury and not the
prosecutor.” Gershon v. Broomfield, 131 Ariz. 507, 509, 642 P.2d
852, 854 (1982), quoted in Crimmins, 137 Ariz. at 44, 668 P.2d at
-7-
887 (Feldman, J., specially concurring). In other words, the
prosecutor’s powers “are derived from the grand jury; it is the
grand jury that possesses the broad investigative powers, and . . .
must be the decisionmaker.” Id. It is not the prosecutor’s role
to deflect the grand jury from its inquiry.
III. DEFENDANT’S CHALLENGE
¶11 A grand jury’s finding of probable cause may be
challenged only on two grounds: “that an insufficient number of
grand jurors concurred in the indictment, or that the defendant was
denied a substantial procedural right.” State ex rel. Collins v.
Kamin, 151 Ariz. 70, 72, 725 P.2d 1104, 1106 (1986) (citing Ariz.
R. Crim. P. 12.9(a)). Maretick asserts that Detective Twitchell’s
misleading testimony, the obstruction of questioning by the
prosecutor, and the failure to give appropriate instructions
combined to deny his substantial procedural right to a fair and
impartial grand jury proceeding.
¶12 In Crimmins, we examined a similar claim of a denial of
a substantial procedural right. 137 Ariz. at 40, 668 P.2d at 883.
The defendant in Crimmins was indicted on a kidnaping charge. Id.
His defense was that he had made a citizen’s arrest of a young man
whom he thought had burglarized his home. Id. The State’s only
witness, the investigating officer, inaccurately testified before
the grand jury that he had no evidence that the alleged kidnaping
victim was involved with the burglary. Id. at 42, 668 P.2d at 885.
-8-
This court found that the testimony, by itself, was not enough to
require redetermination by the grand jury. Id. The inaccurate
testimony, however, when coupled with the State’s failure to give
instructions regarding the citizen’s arrest statute, “rendered the
presentation of this case less than fair and impartial.” Id. We
therefore held that when the State withholds information from the
grand jury and couples that conduct with inadequate instructions on
the law, the defendant may be entitled to a redetermination of
probable cause by an independent grand jury. Id. at 43, 668 P.2d
at 886.
¶13 The circumstances are similar here. The State presented
its case through a single witness, the investigating detective.
That witness misled the grand jury by stating that Maretick had
enjoyed a full recovery, when he knew that Maretick’s brain damage
was long term, if not permanent. Indeed, he knew that Maretick was
rendered unconscious at the scene and while Maretick was somewhat
improved, he had never regained his memory of the events relating
to the accident.
¶14 While this misrepresentation alone was not enough to
merit a redetermination in this case, the prosecutor assisted in
misdirecting the grand jury in two respects. First, he failed to
correct the misstatement. Second, he refused to allow the witness
to answer the juror’s questions, interposing himself between the
juror and the witness in such an intimidating manner that the juror
-9-
felt compelled to apologize for having asked a question that she
had every right to ask – and to have honestly and respectfully
answered by the witness. The facts make this case similar to
Crimmins, in which this court found a denial of due process leading
to an order for remand. But to further sully the picture here, the
prosecutor failed to instruct the grand jury that it was Maretick’s
right to be free from self-incrimination, that Maretick had no
obligation to present evidence, and that the jurors could draw no
negative inference from his failure to do so. See State v.
Corrales, 138 Ariz. 583, 588 n.3, 676 P.2d 615, 620 n.3 (1983)
(reiterating the commonly understood proposition that a jury may
not draw negative inferences from a criminal witness’s exercise of
his Fifth Amendment right); see also Minh T. v. Ariz. Dep’t of
Econ. Sec., 202 Ariz. 76, 79, ¶ 13, 41 P.3d 614, 617 (App. 2001)
(stating that an individual’s Fifth Amendment privilege “can be
claimed in any proceeding,” whether civil or criminal). While the
prosecutor was not strictly required to give the instruction, there
is little doubt that the combination of the witness’s misleading
testimony, the prosecutor’s intervention during grand jury
questioning, and the failure to instruct the jurors in the
applicable constitutional law raises the concern that the grand
jury may have based its indictment upon improper evidence and law.4
4
Although instructions to grand juries are usually given
before any cases are presented, no rule prohibits giving a later
instruction should justice and the needs of the case require that
-10-
¶15 The State counters that, while all of the foregoing is
true, the errors did not prejudice Maretick and therefore were
harmless. In a criminal proceeding, error “is harmless if we can
say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error did not contribute
to or affect the [outcome]. We must be confident beyond a
reasonable doubt that the error had no influence on the jury’s
judgment.” State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 588, 858 P.2d 1152, 1191
(1993) (internal citations and quotation omitted).
¶16 In determining whether the error was harmless, we
consider each misstep in context. See Crimmins, 137 Ariz. at 42,
668 P.2d at 885. The jurors heard the misleading testimony
regarding Maretick’s health and were led to believe that he was
fully recovered and able to make a statement, had he wished to give
one. When a juror asked the detective whether Maretick had made
any statements, the questions were intercepted and deflected by the
prosecutor, who prevented the witness from answering. And finally,
the jurors were not instructed as to Maretick’s Fifth Amendment
rights and how to properly consider his silence. The untrue
statements by the detective, the interference by the prosecutor,
and “[t]he omission of that legal advice, considered with the
inaccurate testimony, rendered the presentation of this case less
than fair and impartial.” Id. We cannot say beyond a reasonable
doubt that such error is harmless.
it be given.
-11-
¶17 We do not know why the prosecutor cut off the grand
jurors’ questions. The trial judge posited that he did so fearing
that the detective’s answer would evoke sympathy from the jurors
and prevent an indictment. While sympathy is not a relevant factor
in determining probable cause, it is impossible to know where the
questioning might have led or how the information might have
influenced the jury because of the prosecutor’s untimely
interruption. Nor is the fact that Maretick made no statement to
the police a relevant factor for consideration in determining
probable cause. As a minister of justice, the prosecutor must
ensure that the jurors understand such fundamental tenets of law.
¶18 In dissenting from the court of appeals decision, Judge
Noyes observed that the detective and prosecutor must have feared
that the grand jury might not indict:
From this scenario emerges a strong appearance
that the prosecutor and the police officer
knew that the officer had given false
testimony, and that they each acted as they
did because they were afraid that the grand
jury might not indict Appellant if the officer
gave truthful answers to the grand jury’s
questions. The real issue here is whether
this was a fundamentally fair grand jury
process.
Maretick v. Jarrett, 1 CA-SA 02-0116 (Ariz. App. Jul. 22, 2002)
(dec. order) (Noyes, J., dissenting). We find that it was not a
fundamentally fair process, and we are not convinced, beyond a
reasonable doubt, that the errors had “no influence on the jury’s
judgment.” Bible, 175 Ariz. at 588, 858 P.2d at 1191.
-12-
¶19 The grand jury, as an independent body, must be allowed
to pursue the investigation as it chooses, unless it is pursuing
“clearly improper and unfair lines of inquiry.” State v. Superior
Court (Smith), 186 Ariz. 143, 145, 920 P.2d 23, 25 (App. 1996).
Questions regarding statements Maretick may have made to the police
cannot be said to be a clearly improper or unfair line of inquiry.
A prosecutor “is the representative not of an ordinary party to a
controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern
impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all.”
Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935), overruled on other
grounds, Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212 (1960). In this
unique role, the prosecutor “is in a peculiar and very definite
sense the servant of the law.” Id. The servants of the law whose
conduct we examine here interfered with the grand jury’s inquiry
and in doing so denied Maretick’s substantial procedural rights.
CONCLUSION
¶20 We find that Maretick’s right to due process was violated
by the detective’s misleading testimony, coupled with the
prosecutor’s interference with the grand jury’s independence and
his failure to instruct the jury regarding the pertinent law. We
-13-
therefore vacate the opinion of the court of appeals, reverse the
decision of the superior court, and remand the case for a
redetermination of probable cause.5
Rebecca White Berch, Justice
CONCURRING:
Charles E. Jones, Chief Justice
Ruth V. McGregor, Vice Chief Justice
Stanley G. Feldman, Justice (retired)
Michael D. Ryan, Justice
5
Maretick asks us to dismiss with prejudice, but we do not
find here the type of consistent or egregious prosecutorial
misconduct necessary for such a determination. See State v.
Minnitt, ___ Ariz. ___, 55 P.3d 774 (2002); Pool v. Superior Court
(State), 139 Ariz. 98, 677 P.2d 261 (1984).
-14-