P v. Arroyo (Cal. Supreme Ct.): Direct Adult Filing of Juveniles May Proceed By Way of Grand Jury Indictment

Master Arroyo was riding in a car that contained gang members and a gun.  The Orange County District Attorney brought Arroyo's case before a grand jury.  The grand jury found probable cause that Arroyo had committed certain offenses and that Arroyo was over 14 at the time.  The OCDA then filed an indictment in the Superior Court.

Arroyo's demurrer was granted and the indictment dismissed, on the grounds the applicable statute, California Welfare and Institutions Code section 707(d)(4), required the DA to proceed by way of an information, which necessitates a preliminary examination, a proceeding that affords the accused greater protections than before a grand jury.  The state appealed and the district appellate court reversed.

Now the California Supreme Court affirms the district court, holding that a juvenile direct-file may be commenced by way of grand jury indictment.  The issue is one of statutory interpretation, specifically the following language.

In any case in which the [state] has filed an accusatory pleading against a minor in a court of criminal jurisdiction pursuant to this subdivision, the case shall then proceed according to the laws applicable to a criminal case. In conjunction with the preliminary hearing as provided in Section 738 of the Penal Code, the magistrate shall make a finding that reasonable cause exists to believe that the minor comes within this subdivision. If reasonable cause is not established, the criminal court shall transfer the case to the juvenile court having jurisdiction over the matter.

The first sentence is consistent with the state being able to proceed by way of an indictment as such a course is in accordance with "the laws applicable to a criminal case".  It is the second sentence that creates the controversy.  It is really just one word, the definite article "the" modifying "preliminary hearing" that creates the issue.  Had the drafters used the indefinite article "a", there would be no issue.  But because a definite article refers to a noun that is identifiable to the listener, it creates an implication the modified noun necessarily exists.  Arroyo uses this angle to argue that the statute requires a preliminary hearing.

The California Supreme Court rejects this interpretation, instead finding the first sentence indicates an intent to allow the state to proceed by any legal method.  It is a reasonable interpretation.  But to be intellectually honest, the alternate interpretation would probably be just as reasonable.