In any criminal proceeding before a court or grand jury, if a person refuses to answer a question or produce evidence of any other kind on the ground that he may be incriminated thereby and if the prosecuting attorney, in writing, requests the court to order that person to answer the question or produce the evidence, the court may so order and that person shall comply with the order. When the court denies such a request, the court shall state its reasons for denial in writing. After complying, such testimony or evidence, or any information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony or evidence, shall not be used against the person in any proceeding or prosecution for a crime or offense concerning which he gave answer or produced evidence under court order. However, he may nevertheless be prosecuted or subjected to penalty or forfeiture for any perjury, false swearing or contempt committed in answering, or failing to answer, or in producing, or failing to produce, evidence in accordance with the order. If a person refuses to testify after being granted immunity and after being ordered to testify as aforesaid, he may be adjudged in contempt and committed to the county jail. If the grand jury before which he was ordered to testify has been dissolved, he may then purge himself by testifying before the court.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
23
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1979–2022 · leading case:
State v. Axley, 646 P.2d 268 (Ariz. 1982).
State v. Axley, 646 P.2d 268 (Ariz. 1982).
· cites it 4× “Axley asked the court to grant the witness use immunity, *388 but his request was denied because, pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4064, 4 the County Attorney did not request immunity for the witness.”
Patchell v. State, 711 P.2d 647 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 10× “In this special action, we are called upon to determine the validity of Arizona’s “use immunity” statute, A.R.S. § 13-4064, under the Arizona Constitution.”
State v. Fisher, 686 P.2d 750 (Ariz. 1984).
· cites it 2× “2d 898 (1977); A.R.S. § 13-4064. As we concluded in State v.”
John Doe I v. Superior Ct. in & for Pima Cty., 717 P.2d 473 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 9× “This special action was taken from the order of the superior court holding the petitioners in contempt for refusing to testify before the Pima County grand jury after having been granted use immunity pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4064. The petitioners contend that Arizona’s use…”
State v. Jeffers, 661 P.2d 1105 (Ariz. 1983).
“§ 13-1804, now § 13-4064, explicitly provides that immunity is to be granted at the prosecuting attorney’s request and does not authorize the court to grant immunity on its own motion.”
State v. Mills, 995 P.2d 705 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “Immunity may only be granted upon the state’s written request and an order entered pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4064. Moreover, “[t]he state exercises sole discretion in granting immunity to witnesses.”
Franzi v. Koedyker, 758 P.2d 1303 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 3× “They were interviewed, and subsequently appellees Koe-dyker and Kelly testified before the grand jury. After Franzi was indicted the appel-lee Oberg was listed as a witness and deposed.”
State v. Gertz, 918 P.2d 1056 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 3× “§ 41-1066 likewise distinguishes that statute from A.R.S. § 13-4064, which permits the taking of compulsory testimony, subject to a grant of use immunity, ‘‘[i]n any criminal proceeding- before a court or grand jury.”
State v. Ott, 808 P.2d 305 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 2× “Cf A.R.S. § 13-4064 (person may be compelled to answer in a criminal proceeding before a grand jury or court, provided that information derived directly or indirectly from the testimony cannot be used against the person in any related proceeding or prosecution).”
State v. Cornejo, 677 P.2d 1312 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 13-4064; State v. Buchanan, 110 Ariz.”
State v. Verdugo, 602 P.2d 472 (Ariz. 1979).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 13-4064. It is a matter of prosecutorial discretion to decide when the public interest would be best served by a grant of immunity.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.