to Disclose Exculpating Evidence in His Possession. The grand jury shall receive only evidence presented to it by the prosecuting attorney but the prosecuting attorney shall submit any evidence in his possession which would tend to negate guilt and the grand jury shall weigh all the evidence submitted. COURT DECISIONS: 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; 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. Sablan, D.C. Cr. 85-0024A (1986). Evidence known to the prosecutor that would indicate defendant was elsewhere at the time the crime was alleged to have been committed is the sort which must be presented to the Grand Jury as mitigation pursuant to 8 GCA § 50.46. D.C. GUAM APP. DIV: People v. Grajo, DCA 86-00002 (1987). Section 50.46 imposes no duty on the prosecutor to explain any evidence beneficial to the defense, nor to instruct the Grand Jury on the possibility of lesser included crimes. NOTE: Section 50.46 is new but is based on proposed § 9299 of the California
COL050108
Criminal Procedure Code. See California Joint Legislative Committee for Revision of the Penal Code, Penal Code Revision Project (Staff Draft 1975). Compare Cal. Pen. Code § 939.7. The basic principle is also expressed in ABA, Project on Standards for Criminal Justice the Prosecution Function and Defense Function § 3.6(b) (Approved draft 1971) ("The prosecutor should disclose to the grand jury any evidence which he knows will tend to negate guilt.")