A. The process by which attendance of a witness before a court or magistrate is required is a subpoena.
B. The subpoena may be signed and issued:
1. By a magistrate before whom a complaint is laid for witnesses, either on behalf of the state or the defendant.
2. By the county attorney, attorney general, municipal prosecutor or city prosecutor for witnesses to appear before the grand jury, or for witnesses on a complaint, indictment or information to appear before the court in which the complaint, indictment or information is to be heard or tried or by the county attorney, attorney general, municipal prosecutor or city prosecutor for witnesses requested by a grand jury.
3. By the clerk of the court in which an indictment or information is to be tried, or by the clerk as authorized in subsection C.
C. The clerk of the court or the clerk's designee, on request of the county attorney or attorney general, shall issue a subpoena for witnesses to appear before the grand jury, without prior authorization by a grand jury, if all of the following occur:
1. A duly impaneled grand jury is sworn and is in existence at the time of the issuance of the subpoena.
2. The county attorney or attorney general designates the subpoena with the standard identifying grand jury number.
3. The county attorney or attorney general reports to the foreman of the grand jury, or in the foreman's absence the acting foreman, the fact of the issuance of the subpoena within ten days following its issuance or, if the grand jury is in recess, at the first succeeding session of the grand jury after the expiration of the ten day period.
4. The county attorney or attorney general reports to the presiding judge of the superior court the fact of the issuance of the subpoena within ten days following its issuance.
D. The clerk, at any time, on application of the defendant, and without charge, shall issue as many blank subpoenas, subscribed by the clerk as clerk, for witnesses as the defendant requires. Blank subpoenas shall not be used to procure discovery in a criminal case, including to access the records of a victim. Records relating to recovered memories or disassociated memories may be subject to subpoena only if the state seeks to introduce evidence of the victim's recovered or disassociated memory, the records are not otherwise privileged and the court approves the subpoena after a hearing. The victim shall be given notice of and the right to be heard at any proceeding involving a subpoena for records of the victim from a third party.
Notes of Decisions
Michael Lacey v. Joseph Arpaio, 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012).
· cites it 4× “Rev. Stat. § 13-4071 (B)(2). First, the prosecutor may do so with the prior consent of the grand jury.”
Gershon v. Broomfield, 642 P.2d 852 (Ariz. 1982).
· cites it 22× “" Whatever subpoena powers the Attorney General has, therefore, are found in A.R.S. § 13-4071 et seq. Section 13-4071(B) states: "The subpoena may be signed and issued: * * * * * * "2.”
State v. Quijada, 439 P.3d 815 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “2002) (because defendant requesting reexamination of pretrial release conditions was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing, defendant did not have right to compel the victim to testify and be subject to cross-examination).”
Morehart v. Barton, 250 P.3d 1139 (Ariz. 2011).
· cites it 2× “For example, victims are statutorily entitled to “be given notice of and the right to be heard at any proceeding involving a subpoena for records of the victim from a third party,” A.R.S. § 13-4071(D), and, “on the filing of a notice of appearance and if present, counsel for the…”
State v. Parris, 696 P.2d 1368 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 2× “1983); A.R.S. §§ 13-4071(D) and 13-4072. Having had the opportunity to cross-examine Martin while he was on the witness stand and, further, given the opportunity to subpoena him for his continued presence, we think appellant’s argument that Martin was not “subject to…”
State v. Phillips, No. 1 CA-CR 17-0285 (Ariz. Ct. App. July 10, 2018).
· cites it 12× “The thrust of her argument is that the grand jury subpoenas were required to comply with A.R.S. § 13-4071, and because they did not, the superior court erred in denying her motion to suppress evidence obtained in response to the subpoenas.”
State v. Wadi, No. 1 CA-CR 17-0493 (Ariz. Ct. App. May 30, 2019).
· cites it 4× “2008) (“suppression is a disfavored remedy” outside the context of constitutional violations).”
State v. Stevens, No. 1 CA-CR 19-0703 (Ariz. Ct. App. Nov. 10, 2020).
· cites it 2× “Instead, and nearly at the end of trial, he attempted to have her testify by telephone.”
State v. Osgood, No. 1 CA-CR 20-0148 (Ariz. Ct. App. May 13, 2021).
· cites it 2× “During the hearing, Detective Brazell testified concerning the subpoenas and his investigation of Osgood. Regarding Osgood’s arrest, Brazell testified he did not believe probable cause existed to arrest Osgood when he detained and transported him to the police department.”
State v. Cowled, No. 1 CA-CR 23-0085 (Ariz. Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2024).
· cites it 2× “He had ample time to secure travel arrangements for Yanello, but he did not do so.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4071(A): 2 cases
State v. Stevens, No. 1 CA-CR 19-0703 (Ariz. Ct. App. Nov. 10, 2020).
“Instead, and nearly at the end of trial, he attempted to have her testify by telephone.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4071(B): 1 case
Gershon v. Broomfield, 642 P.2d 852 (Ariz. 1982).
“" Whatever subpoena powers the Attorney General has, therefore, are found in A.R.S. § 13-4071 et seq. Section 13-4071(B) states: "The subpoena may be signed and issued: * * * * * * "2.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4071(B)(2): 3 cases
Gershon v. Broomfield, 642 P.2d 852 (Ariz. 1982).
“" Whatever subpoena powers the Attorney General has, therefore, are found in A.R.S. § 13-4071 et seq. Section 13-4071(B) states: "The subpoena may be signed and issued: * * * * * * "2.”
Michael Lacey v. Joseph Arpaio, 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012).
“Rev. Stat. § 13-4071 (B)(2). First, the prosecutor may do so with the prior consent of the grand jury.”
State v. Quijada, 439 P.3d 815 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
“2002) (because defendant requesting reexamination of pretrial release conditions was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing, defendant did not have right to compel the victim to testify and be subject to cross-examination).”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4071(C): 2 cases
Michael Lacey v. Joseph Arpaio, 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012).
“Rev. Stat. § 13-4071 (B)(2). First, the prosecutor may do so with the prior consent of the grand jury.”
State v. Osgood, No. 1 CA-CR 20-0148 (Ariz. Ct. App. May 13, 2021).
“During the hearing, Detective Brazell testified concerning the subpoenas and his investigation of Osgood. Regarding Osgood’s arrest, Brazell testified he did not believe probable cause existed to arrest Osgood when he detained and transported him to the police department.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4071(C)(1): 2 cases
State v. Phillips, No. 1 CA-CR 17-0285 (Ariz. Ct. App. July 10, 2018).
“The thrust of her argument is that the grand jury subpoenas were required to comply with A.R.S. § 13-4071, and because they did not, the superior court erred in denying her motion to suppress evidence obtained in response to the subpoenas.”
State v. Wadi, No. 1 CA-CR 17-0493 (Ariz. Ct. App. May 30, 2019).
“2008) (“suppression is a disfavored remedy” outside the context of constitutional violations).”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4071(C)(3): 1 case
State v. Phillips, No. 1 CA-CR 17-0285 (Ariz. Ct. App. July 10, 2018).
“The thrust of her argument is that the grand jury subpoenas were required to comply with A.R.S. § 13-4071, and because they did not, the superior court erred in denying her motion to suppress evidence obtained in response to the subpoenas.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4071(D): 3 cases
Morehart v. Barton, 250 P.3d 1139 (Ariz. 2011).
“For example, victims are statutorily entitled to “be given notice of and the right to be heard at any proceeding involving a subpoena for records of the victim from a third party,” A.R.S. § 13-4071(D), and, “on the filing of a notice of appearance and if present, counsel for the…”
State v. Parris, 696 P.2d 1368 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
“1983); A.R.S. §§ 13-4071(D) and 13-4072. Having had the opportunity to cross-examine Martin while he was on the witness stand and, further, given the opportunity to subpoena him for his continued presence, we think appellant’s argument that Martin was not “subject to…”
State v. Cowled, No. 1 CA-CR 23-0085 (Ariz. Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2024).
“He had ample time to secure travel arrangements for Yanello, but he did not do so.”
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.