Sec. 4. (a) When a prosecuting attorney receives
information of the commission of a felony or misdemeanor, the
prosecuting attorney shall cause process to issue from a court having
jurisdiction to issue the process to the proper officer, directing the
officer to subpoena the persons named in the process who are likely to
have information concerning the commission of the felony or
misdemeanor. The prosecuting attorney shall examine a person
subpoenaed before the court that issued the process concerning the
offense.
(b) If the facts elicited under subsection (a) are sufficient to
establish a reasonable presumption of guilt against the party charged,
the court shall:
(1) cause the testimony that amounts to a charge of a felony or
misdemeanor to be reduced to writing and subscribed and sworn
to by the witness; and
(2) issue process for the apprehension of the accused, as in other
cases.
[Pre-2004 Recodification Citation: 33-14-1-3.]
As added by P.L.98-2004, SEC.18. Amended by P.L.84-2016,
SEC.152.
Notes of Decisions
In Re: Prosecutor's Subpoena Regarding S.H. & S.C. S.H. v. State of Indiana, 984 N.E.2d 630 (Ind. 2013).
· cites it 4× “We therefore hold that in a situation where, as here, no charges have been filed and no grand jury has been convened, a prosecutor may subpoena witnesses pursuant to Indiana Code § 33-39-1-4; if those witnesses invoke their constitutional right against self-incrimination,…”
Pelley v. State, 883 N.E.2d 874 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 4× “See Ind.Code § 33-39-1-4 (authorizing a prosecutor to obtain investigative pre-charge subpoenas duces tecum) (formerly Ind.”
Percifield v. State, 814 N.E.2d 710 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 3× “§ 33-14-1-3 (now I.C. § 33-39-1-4) does not prohibit cireuit courts from issuing subpoenas duces tecum, and the trial court did not err by denying Percifield's motion to suppress his cellular phone records.”
Louis Davis v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 4× “In regard to the statutory citation, the subpoenas incorrectly indicated that they were issued pursuant to Indiana Code section 33-14-1-3, which was recodified as Indiana Code section 33-39-1-4 in 2004. P.L. 98-2004. However, the trial court was correct to note that, because the…”
Shawn D. Jaco v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “) Jaco argues that he is entitled to reversal of his convictions because the trial court erred in issuing a subpoena pursuant to Indiana Code § 33-39-1-4. In part, the statute provides: 12 When a prosecuting attorney receives information of the commission of a felony or…”
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.