## Facts

- Clarence Miller alleged two police officers had “maliciously wounded” him and obtained criminal warrants against them.
- A magistrate dismissed the warrants.
- Miller presented his allegations to Clay County Prosecuting Attorney Hunter Smith, Jr.
- Smith investigated and concluded the officers had stopped Miller for driving under the influence; Miller resisted arrest and crawled under his car; the officers used chemical mace to remove him.
- Smith declined to present Miller’s complaint to the grand jury.
- Miller attempted to obtain permission from the grand jury foreman to appear personally and present evidence.
- Smith stated he would inform the grand jury of Miller’s request but would discourage the grand jury from hearing Miller’s evidence.
- The grand jury voted not to hear Miller.
- Miller sought a writ of prohibition to restrain Smith from dissuading or discouraging the grand jury from hearing Miller or his evidence.

## Issues

1. Whether a private citizen has a lawful right to present a criminal complaint personally to a grand jury over the prosecuting attorney’s objection.
2. Whether a prosecuting attorney may attempt to influence a grand jury through unsworn factual assertions or similar informal communications.
3. Whether a writ of prohibition may issue to prevent a prosecuting attorney from discouraging or interfering with a citizen’s attempt to be heard by a grand jury.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia recognized that a private citizen may seek access to the grand jury by applying to the circuit judge, whose duty includes ensuring such access under the state constitution’s open-courts provision.
- The court indicated that prosecutorial efforts to influence the grand jury through unsworn presentations or other improper means threaten the integrity and independence of the grand jury’s decision-making.
- The court treated prohibition as an available remedy to restrain prosecutorial conduct that would interfere with a citizen’s lawful effort to present a complaint to the grand jury.

## Legal Principles

- Under W. Va. Const. art. III, § 17, any person may, by application to the circuit judge, obtain access to the grand jury to present a complaint; the circuit judge has a duty to ensure that access.
- A prosecutor retains discretion whether to seek an indictment but may not use the office to block or chill a citizen’s route to the grand jury through improper discouragement or interference.
- When a prosecutor attempts to influence a grand jury’s decision through unsworn factual assertions or similar informal advocacy, the grand jury’s action may be tainted.
- Prohibition may be used to prevent prospective prosecutorial interference with grand jury access where ordinary remedies are inadequate.

## Conclusion

The court held that West Virginia’s open-courts guarantee supports a citizen’s ability to seek grand-jury access through the circuit judge and that extraordinary relief may restrain a prosecutor from improperly discouraging that access or influencing the grand jury through unsworn or otherwise improper communications.


State ex rel. Miller v. Smith, 168 W. Va. 745, 285 S.E.2d 500 (W. Va. 1981)