Arizona Revised Statutes
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 22-423 (2026)
Procedure
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official)
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
The rules of criminal procedure for the superior court, including the provisions regarding bail, issuance of subpoenas and punishment for disobedience thereof shall apply to municipal courts so far as applicable and when not otherwise prescribed.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1965–1999 · leading case: Owen v. City Court of City of Tucson, 599 P.2d 223 (Ariz. 1979).
Owen v. City Court of City of Tucson, 599 P.2d 223 (Ariz. 1979). “§ 12-864 and A.R.S. § 22-423 and Rule 33 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.”
Rothweiler v. Superior Court of Pima Cnty., 410 P.2d 479 (Ariz. 1966). “§ 21-332; A.R.S. § 22-423; Ariz.R.Crim. P. 273. In 1962, the legislature amended A.”
St. Ex Rel. De Concini v. City Ct. of City of Tucson, Pima Cnty., 454 P.2d 192 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1969). “A, there was a right to a jury trial in a magistrate's court under A.R.S. § 22-423, which adopts for the police courts the Rules of Criminal Procedure for the superior court, 17 A.”
Rothweiler v. Superior Court of Pima Cnty., 402 P.2d 1010 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1965). “If this be not the case, the outcome of this proceeding remains the same, for A.R.S. § 22-423, pertaining to city courts, adopts the criminal rules of procedure of the superior court “when not otherwise prescribed.”
Tsipai v. State, 442 P.2d 167 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1968). “The rule of statutory construction negating change, unless clearly expressed, leads us to the conclusion that provisions of A.”
City of St. Paul v. Whidby, 203 N.W.2d 823 (Minn. 1972). “Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 22-423 (1956); Md.”
Frohlich v. City Court, 995 P.2d 714 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999). “In support, appellant relies on A.R.S. § 22-423, which states that the “rules of criminal procedure” apply to municipal courts “so far as applicable and when not otherwise prescribed.”
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.