Main Menu

Smith v. State

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Court of Appeals of Alaska (2024)
Madison Detweiler

In Smith v. State, 549 P.3d 145 (Alaska Ct. App. 2024), the court of appeals held that courts are not constitutionally required to affirmatively instruct grand juries that they have discretion to decline to indict in a particular case. (Id. at 153). Smith was indicted by a grand jury on charges of second- and fourth-degree misconduct involving a controlled substance. (Id. at 146). The judge’s instructions to the grand jury did not affirmatively instruct them that they had the discretion not to indict. (Id. at 148). However, the instructions included that the grand jury had an obligation to indict people when there was “just grounds for the charge” and an obligation to not indict anyone “without good cause.” (Id. at 153). On appeal, Smith argued that (1) the presiding judge was constitutionally required to affirmatively instruct the grand jury that they had the discretion not to indict even if they concluded the evidence supported the charges and (2) that the grand jury’s instructions actively misled them by suggesting they did not have that discretion. (Id. at 147).  The court of appeals rejected both arguments, reasoning that, for Smith’s first argument, there was no historical grounding for the notion that affirmative instructions are constitutionally required. (Id. at 150). Specifically, very few jurisdictions actually expressly advise grand jurors of their discretion to decline to indict and precedent cases from the Ninth Circuit and from the Alaska court of appeals both supported the notion that it is not unconstitutional to give no affirmative instruction (Id. at 150–51). As to Smith’s second argument, the court stated that the jury was not misled because the grand jury instructions informed them of their independence and the possibility of refusing to indict even with evidence sufficient to support an indictment was not prevented because the concepts of “just grounds” and “good cause” were included in the instructions. (Id. at 153). Affirming the lower court’s decision, the court of appeals held that Alaska courts are not constitutionally required to affirmatively instruct grand juries that they have discretion to decline to indict in a particular case (Id.).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Smith v. State

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Court of Appeals of Alaska (2024)
Madison Detweiler

In Smith v. State, 549 P.3d 145 (Alaska Ct. App. 2024), the court of appeals held that courts are not constitutionally required to affirmatively instruct grand juries that they have discretion to decline to indict in a particular case. (Id. at 153). Smith was indicted by a grand jury on charges of second- and fourth-degree misconduct involving a controlled substance. (Id. at 146). The judge’s instructions to the grand jury did not affirmatively instruct them that they had the discretion not to indict. (Id. at 148). However, the instructions included that the grand jury had an obligation to indict people when there was “just grounds for the charge” and an obligation to not indict anyone “without good cause.” (Id. at 153). On appeal, Smith argued that (1) the presiding judge was constitutionally required to affirmatively instruct the grand jury that they had the discretion not to indict even if they concluded the evidence supported the charges and (2) that the grand jury’s instructions actively misled them by suggesting they did not have that discretion. (Id. at 147).  The court of appeals rejected both arguments, reasoning that, for Smith’s first argument, there was no historical grounding for the notion that affirmative instructions are constitutionally required. (Id. at 150). Specifically, very few jurisdictions actually expressly advise grand jurors of their discretion to decline to indict and precedent cases from the Ninth Circuit and from the Alaska court of appeals both supported the notion that it is not unconstitutional to give no affirmative instruction (Id. at 150–51). As to Smith’s second argument, the court stated that the jury was not misled because the grand jury instructions informed them of their independence and the possibility of refusing to indict even with evidence sufficient to support an indictment was not prevented because the concepts of “just grounds” and “good cause” were included in the instructions. (Id. at 153). Affirming the lower court’s decision, the court of appeals held that Alaska courts are not constitutionally required to affirmatively instruct grand juries that they have discretion to decline to indict in a particular case (Id.).