(1) The general assembly finds that the state grand jury exists because of the need to investigate and prosecute crime without regard to county or judicial district boundaries in cases involving organized crime, criminal activity in more than one judicial district, or unusual difficulties in the investigation or adjudication of a matter or cases in which the attorney general has authority to prosecute. The state grand jury is intended, therefore, to be a law enforcement tool with statewide jurisdiction.
(2) When the attorney general deems it to be in the public interest to convene a grand jury that has jurisdiction extending beyond the boundaries of any single county, the attorney general may petition the chief judge of any district court for an order in accordance with the provisions of this article. Said chief judge may, for good cause shown, order the impaneling of a state grand jury that shall have statewide jurisdiction. In making a determination as to the need for impaneling a state grand jury, the judge shall require a showing that the matter cannot be effectively handled by a grand jury impaneled pursuant to article 72 or 74 of this title, such grand juries being referred to in this article as a "county grand jury" or a "judicial district grand jury", respectively.
Source: L. 71: p. 880, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 78-8-1. L. 96: Entire section amended, p. 738, § 12, effective July 1. L. 97: (1) amended, p. 1552, § 4, effective July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
13
cases, 1975–1996 · leading case:
People v. Corr, 682 P.2d 20 (Colo. 1984).
People v. Corr, 682 P.2d 20 (Colo. 1984).
· cites it 12× “Also at this time, the Attorney General annually petitioned the chief judge of a district court to empanel a statewide grand jury pursuant to section 13-73-101, C.R.S. 1973, to deal with Strike Force-related investigations.”
People Ex Rel. Tooley v. Dist. Court, Second Jd, 549 P.2d 774 (Colo. 1976).
· cites it 6× “Thereafter, pursuant to section 13-73-101, C.R.S. 1973, the chief judge of the Second Judicial District directed *488 that a State Grand Jury should be impaneled.”
People v. Valdez, 928 P.2d 1387 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 8× “A state grand jury had already been impanelled, pursuant to §§ 13-73-101 to XX-XX-XXX, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.”
People v. Cerrone, 867 P.2d 143 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 6× “Section 13-73-101, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol.”
Pr v. Dist. Court for Cnty. of Denver, 637 P.2d 346 (Colo. 1981).
· cites it 3× “NOTES [1] Section 13-73-101, C.R.S.1973, states: "When the attorney general deems it to be in the public interest to convene a grand jury which has jurisdiction extending beyond the boundaries of any single county, he may petition the chief judge of any district court for an…”
People v. Cerrone, 829 P.2d 468 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 4× “Section 13-73-101, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol.”
People v. Cerrone, 854 P.2d 178 (Colo. 1993).
“" § 13-73-101, 6A C.R.S. (1987). The Attorney General then "may petition the chief judge of any district court for an order [to empanel a statewide grand jury].”
Cerrone v. People, 900 P.2d 45 (Colo. 1995).
· cites it 2× “" § 13-73-101, 6A C.R.S. (1987). The attorney general then "may petition the chief judge of any district court for an order [to impanel a state grand jury].”
People v. Rice, 579 P.2d 647 (Colo. Ct. App. 1978).
“and § 13-73-101 et seq., C.R.S.1973, supports the proposition that such juries are restricted in their scope to dealing with events which transpire within their respective judicial districts.”
People v. McCormick, 859 P.2d 846 (Colo. 1993).
“§ 13-73-101, 6A C.R.S. (1987). The indictment handed down by the grand jury was returned to the Chief Judge of the Second Judicial District, who set venue in the First Judicial District.”
Ross v. Ogburn, 646 P.2d 390 (Colo. 1982).
· cites it 6× “1973, or in accordance with section 13-73-101, C.R.S. 1973. The district court has authority to call a grand jury in its discretion pursuant to the provisions of section 13-72-101(3), which provides: “In all other counties the grand jury shall be called and sit at such times and…”
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.