JOHN K. VAN DE KAMP Attorney General
JACK R. WINKLER Deputy Attorney General
AGO 83-903
No. 83-903
California Attorney General Opinion
Office of the Attorney General State of California
February 24, 1984
THE
HONORABLE DENNIS A. BARLOW, COUNTY COUNSEL OF YUBA COUNTY,
AND THE HONORABLE DARRELL LARSON, COUNTY COUNSEL OF SUTTER
COUNTY, have jointly requested the opinion of this office on
the following question:
May
committees from grand juries of separate counties lawfully
meet together and conduct a joint investigation of a
multicounty taxing district which includes such counties?
CONCLUSION
Committees
from grand juries of separate counties may lawfully meet
together and conduct a joint investigation of a multicounty
taxing district which includes such counties for limited
purposes to assist their respective grand juries in the
performance of their functions.
ANALYSIS
We are
advised that information has been provided to members of the
grand juries of two counties that misuse of district property
has occurred in a multicounty special purpose taxing district
which includes those two counties. We are asked whether the
law authorizes committees from the two grand juries, selected
by their respective foremen, to meet together and conduct a
joint investigation of the district in question. It is
contemplated that the two committees would hold joint
meetings in which they would hear witnesses, review evidence
and prepare a joint report to their respective grand juries.
Three
statutes provide grand juries with authority to investigate
specified matters relating to the misuse of the property of
such a district. Penal Code section 917 provides:
"The grand jury may inquire into all public offenses
committed or triable within the county and present them to
the court by indictment."
Government
Code section 3060 provides:
"An accusation in writing against any officer of a
district, county, or city, including any member of the
governing board or personnel commission of a school
district, for willful or corrupt misconduct in office, may
be presented by the grand jury of the county for or in
which the officer accused is elected or appointed. An
accusation may not be presented without the concurrence of
at least 12 grand jurors."
Penal
Code section 933.5 provides:
"A grand jury may at any time examine the books and
records of any special-purpose assessing or taxing district
located wholly or partly in the county or the local agency
formation commission in the county, and, in addition to any
other investigatory powers granted by this chapter, may
investigate and report upon the method or system of
performing the duties of such district, or
commission."
The
first two of these statutes are the bases for the grand
jury's accusatory function since their object is the
initiation of the prosecution of individuals. Section
933.5
1 on the other hand represents one of the
grand jury's "watchdog" or
"reportorial" (see People v. Superior
Court (1975) 13 Cal.3d 430, 436) functions since its
object is a report on matters investigated by the grand jury.
We are
asked whether the investigation contemplated may be conducted
by committees of the grand jury. Our research has not
revealed any statute expressly authorizing the creation and
use of committees of the grand jury. However, section 916
provides:
"Each grand jury shall choose its officers, except the
foreman, and shall determine its rules of proceeding."
In our
view a grand jury's rules of proceeding could well
include the establishment of committees of its members to
whom matters cognizable by the grand jury may be referred for
investigation and report back to the grand jury. Of course,
any such rules would have to be consistent with any statutes
governing the grand jury. In support of this view we refer by
way of analogy to legislative committees and the case of
Special Assembly Interim Committee v.
Southard (1939) 13 Cal.2d 497, 503, wherein the
Supreme Court observed:
...
