A. The county attorney or other prosecuting officer shall attend the grand jurors when requested by them, and may do so although not requested for the purpose of examining witnesses, in their presence, or of giving the grand jurors legal advice regarding any matter cognizable by them. He shall also, when requested by them, draft indictments and cause process to issue for the attendance of witnesses and other evidence.
B. If a charge against or an offense personally involving the prosecuting attorney, or an assistant prosecuting attorney or any one employed by the office of the prosecuting attorney is being investigated by the grand jury, neither such prosecuting attorney nor anyone employed by the office of such prosecuting attorney, including such person or persons under investigation, shall be allowed to be present before the grand jury when such charge is being investigated other than as a witness. The person under investigation after making an appearance as a witness shall leave the place where the grand jury is holding its session.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
17
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1941–2022 · leading case:
State v. Young, 720 P.2d 965 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
State v. Young, 720 P.2d 965 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 20× “See A.R.S. § 21-408. However, we find the dismissal of the indictment with prejudice to be inappropriate.”
Gershon v. Broomfield, 642 P.2d 852 (Ariz. 1982).
· cites it 10× “As pointed out in the majority opinion, the result reached could be based on precedent interpreting a similar statute or on the need for conformity of procedure before state and county grand juries, as required by A.R.S. §§ 21-408 and 21-427(A). More important than these…”
Trebus v. Davis, 944 P.2d 1235 (Ariz. 1997).
· cites it 8× “7 of the California Penal Code, which is similar to A.R.S. §§ 21-408 and 21-412, the prosecutor was obliged to inform the grand jury of the nature and existence of evidence reasonably tending to negate a defendant's guilt.”
Marston's, Inc. v. Strand, 560 P.2d 778 (Ariz. 1977).
· cites it 5× “A.R.S. § 21-408 and § 21-427(A). Generally the prosecutor presents the evidence, prepares the indictments, and advises the grand jury on legal matters.”
State v. Baumann, 610 P.2d 38 (Ariz. 1980).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 21-408(A); Marston’s, Inc. v. Strand, supra; State v.”
State v. Doolittle, 746 P.2d 924 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 4× “The power to initiate and control inquiries into public offenses rests with the grand jury and not with the prosecutor.”
Casey v. Marshall, 168 P.2d 240 (Ariz. 1946).
“The gist of section 21-408, ACA 1939, Rule 8(e), is that all pleadings must be simple, concise and direct.”
Smith v. Pinner, 201 P.2d 741 (Ariz. 1948).
“Prior to the adoption of our new rules of civil procedure this contention would constitute a correct statement of the law, but the adoption of the Rule 8(e), which is Section 21-408 of the Arizona Code Annotated 1939, authorized pleadings *120 which contained inconsistent…”
Julian v. Carpenter, 176 P.2d 693 (Ariz. 1947).
“Section 21-408, A.C.A.1939, reads in part: “A party may set forth two [2] or more statements of a claim * * * alternatively * * * either in one [1] count * * * or in separate counts * * from which it would appear that a party may state as many separate claims as he has…”
Rogers v. Greer, 219 P.2d 760 (Ariz. 1950).
“We believe that these two claims can properly be pleaded and the theories advanced under our rules of civil procedure, Section 21-408, A.C.A.1939, which provides as follows: “Pleading to be concise and direct — Con sistency.”
Utah Const. Co. v. Berg, 205 P.2d 367 (Ariz. 1949).
“While under our rules of procedure claims for relief or defenses may be pleaded in the alternative, regardless of consistency, section 21-408, A.C.A.1939, Rules Civ. Proc.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 21-408(A) — 4 cases
State v. Baumann, 610 P.2d 38 (Ariz. 1980).
“A.R.S. § 21-408(A); Marston’s, Inc. v. Strand, supra; State v.”
State v. Young, 720 P.2d 965 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
“See A.R.S. § 21-408. However, we find the dismissal of the indictment with prejudice to be inappropriate.”
State v. Doolittle, 746 P.2d 924 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
“The power to initiate and control inquiries into public offenses rests with the grand jury and not with the prosecutor.”
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.