The grand jury shall receive only competent evidence but the fact that evidence which is incompetent was received by the grand jury does not render the indictment void where sufficient competent evidence to support the indictment was received by the grand jury. SOURCE: Amended by P.L. 15-94:7, effective 01/17/80. COURT DECISIONS: SUPERIOR COURT, 1978. Competent circumstantial evidence is sufficient to sustain a charge before the grand jury. People v. De Jesus, Sup. Ct. Cr. #6F-78 (Order, 02/27/78; Abbate, P.J.) SUPERIOR COURT, 1978. Failure to establish a technical foundation for the admission of an exhibit before the grand jury does not render such exhibit inadmissible. People v. Gerber, et al., Sup. Ct. Cr. #149F-78, (Order, 09/26/78;
COL050108
Abbate, P.J.) SUPERIOR COURT, 1978. With respect to Grand Jury proceedings, the Defense Attorney assumes a greater burden of proof in attempting to negate defendant's guilt than does the Prosecuting Attorney in attempting to show reasonable cause. People v. Gerber, et al., Sup. Ct. Cr. #149F-78 (Order, 09/26/78; Abbate, P.J.) D.C. GUAM APP. DIV. People v. Quidachay, D.C. Crim. 85-00067A (1986). A Grand Jury indictment will not be overturned because it was based on hearsay testimony. It was the intent of the amendment to this section (§ 50.42) that less than "admissible" evidence is required before the grand jury. Compiler's Note cited in case. NOTE: Section 50.42, as amended by P.L. 15-94, § 7, lowers the standard of evidence required to be presented before the grand jury, requiring that evidence only be competent, rather than requiring that evidence be admissible over objection at a trial. The former section, which was substantively the same as § 939.6 of the California Penal Code, proved unworkable and led to many unnecessary reversals and dismissals of indictments for purely technical reasons. In most instances, the indictments were resubmitted and new indictments returned by the grand jury. No rights of the defendants were materially helped by the former section, but delays were frequent. There have been few, if any interpretations of this amended section since its adoption, but indictments have proceeded in a smoother fashion.