Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 21
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 21-407 (2026)

Duties of grand jurors

✓ text as last checked Oct. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. The grand jurors shall inquire into every offense which may be tried within the county which is presented to them by the county attorney or other prosecuting officer at the request of the county attorney, or by the attorney general as a special prosecutor appointed by the presiding judge of the superior court for the purpose of proceedings under section 21-408, subsection B, or section 38-344, and shall have access to all jails, public institutions, and public records.

B. If a grand juror knows of or has reason to believe that an offense which may be tried within the county has been committed he shall report such knowledge or belief to the county attorney or to the presiding judge of the superior court. If an investigation of such alleged offense is undertaken under a charge to the grand jury as provided in subsection B of section 21-409, the grand juror may be sworn as a witness.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1972–2025 · leading case: Juan Carlos Vicente Sanchez v. Hon. ainley/state of Arizona, 321 P.3d 415 (Ariz. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Juan Carlos Vicente Sanchez v. Hon. ainley/state of Arizona, 321 P.3d 415 (Ariz. 2014). · cites it 8× “” A.R.S. §§ 21-407, -413; Ariz. R. Crim. P.”
Franzi v. Superior Court of Arizona, 679 P.2d 1043 (Ariz. 1984). · cites it 4× “The resolution of this claim requires us to determine the scope of the grand jury's power to investigate.”
State v. Duran, 575 P.2d 1265 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 2× “Duran, pursuant to A.R.S. § 21-407. The County Attorney also requests the Attorney General, should the Maricopa County Grand Jury choose to indict Abelardo P.”
Franzi v. Superior Court, 679 P.2d 1043 (Ariz. 1984). · cites it 4× “The resolution of this claim requires us to determine the scope of the grand jury’s power to investigate. If the instant investigation exceeded that power, we must determine if this is a defense to the present charges.”
State v. Aussie, 854 P.2d 158 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “Under that scenario, the defendant could well be charged with contempt of court for failure to comply with the civil order. However, failure to comply did not take place in Navajo County and the Grand Jury may not consider criminal conduct that is not triable in this county.”
State ex rel. Berger v. Myers, 495 P.2d 844 (Ariz. 1972). · cites it 2× “The grand jury is by law a public body of qualified persons sworn to inquire into public offenses, A.”
Aranzi Rae Jon Willis v. Hon. bernini/state, 515 P.3d 142 (Ariz. 2022). · cites it 4× “” ¶21 Finally, even if Williams had held what the State argues—that there is no Fifth Amendment due process right to the presentation of exculpatory evidence—such a holding would not bind us when interpreting the Arizona Constitution’s due process provision.”
Joel Carson v. Hon. gentry/state, 574 P.3d 205 (Ariz. 2025). · cites it 2× “416, 418 (1976); see also State v. Prentiss, 163 Ariz.”
Rodriguez v. Pima Cnty. Superior Court, 601 P.2d 318 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 2× “It is to be noted that A.R.S. § 21-407 gives to the grand jury the power to “inquire into every offense which may be tried within the county .”
State v. Birdsall, 568 P.2d 419 (Ariz. 1977). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 21-407 specifies the duties of grand jurors: “A.”
Franz v. State, 576 P.3d 716 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “621, 623 (1997) (The prosecutor must “instruct the grand jury on all the law applicable to the facts of the case.” (emphasis added)), abrogated on other grounds by, Willis, 253 Ariz.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 21-407(A): 5 cases
Franzi v. Superior Court of Arizona, 679 P.2d 1043 (Ariz. 1984). “The resolution of this claim requires us to determine the scope of the grand jury's power to investigate.”
Franzi v. Superior Court, 679 P.2d 1043 (Ariz. 1984). “The resolution of this claim requires us to determine the scope of the grand jury’s power to investigate. If the instant investigation exceeded that power, we must determine if this is a defense to the present charges.”
Aranzi Rae Jon Willis v. Hon. bernini/state, 515 P.3d 142 (Ariz. 2022). “” ¶21 Finally, even if Williams had held what the State argues—that there is no Fifth Amendment due process right to the presentation of exculpatory evidence—such a holding would not bind us when interpreting the Arizona Constitution’s due process provision.”
Joel Carson v. Hon. gentry/state, 574 P.3d 205 (Ariz. 2025). “416, 418 (1976); see also State v. Prentiss, 163 Ariz.”
Franz v. State, 576 P.3d 716 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025). “621, 623 (1997) (The prosecutor must “instruct the grand jury on all the law applicable to the facts of the case.” (emphasis added)), abrogated on other grounds by, Willis, 253 Ariz.”
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.