## Facts

- H. H. Disbrow served as guardian for B. F. Smith and received $723.78 by virtue of that trust.
- A grand jury indicted Disbrow for larceny by embezzlement, alleging receipt of the funds in 1896 and conversion to his own use in February 1904.
- A prior indictment on the same charge was set aside at the January 1905 term after the term’s grand jury had already been discharged.
- Rather than recalling the discharged grand jury, the district court summoned all grand jurors drawn for county service for the current year, impaneled a new grand jury from that group, and resubmitted the charge.
- The newly impaneled grand jury returned the January 19, 1905 indictment under which Disbrow was tried, convicted, and sentenced to imprisonment.
- Disbrow challenged the indictment by motion to set it aside and by motion in arrest of judgment, alleging irregularities in the grand jury’s impaneling; both motions were denied.

## Issues

1. Whether, after a grand jury for the term has been regularly discharged, a district court may summon the annual venire of grand jurors and impanel a new grand jury to consider a charge.
2. Whether impaneling a new grand jury in that manner is a substantial departure from statutory requirements that invalidates the indictment absent a showing of prejudice.

## Decision

- The Iowa Supreme Court reversed the conviction.
- The court rejected Disbrow’s challenge to the indictment based on the method of impaneling the second grand jury.
- The court held that, once a grand jury is properly discharged, the court may respond to a later need for grand jury service by recalling jurors or impaneling a new grand jury from the current year’s venire.
- The court held that grand-jury selection statutes require substantial compliance, not technical or literal exactness, and that no prejudice was shown from the procedure used.
- The reversal rested on grounds other than the asserted grand-jury irregularity.

## Legal Principles

- Grand-jury selection procedures require substantial compliance with governing statutes; technical departures do not invalidate an indictment without prejudice.
- After a grand jury has been regularly discharged, a trial court has implied authority to secure further grand-jury service during the term by recalling jurors or organizing a new grand jury from the annual pool when necessity arises.
- A defendant who identifies no disqualified juror and shows no actual prejudice cannot obtain dismissal of an indictment based solely on objections to the court’s method of convening the grand jury.

## Conclusion

The court reversed Disbrow’s conviction but held that convening a new grand jury from the current year’s venire after the term’s grand jury had been discharged was a permissible, substantially compliant procedure that did not invalidate the indictment absent proof of prejudice.


State v. Disbrow, 130 Iowa 19, 106 N.W. 263 (Iowa 1906)