Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

McKaney v. Foreman

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided November 2, 2004No. CV-04-0032-SAPublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partHurwitz, Justice

¶ 25 The Court today holds that the indictment clause of the Arizona Constitution, Article II, Section 30, provides less protection to our citizens than the corresponding clause in the federal constitution. This is to my knowledge the first time that this Court has reached such a conclusion, and I cannot join it. Nonetheless, for the reasons I describe in Section II below, I would decline petitioner’s request for special action relief because he has an adequate remedy at law.

I

¶ 26 Article II, Section 30 provides that “[n]o person shall be prosecuted criminally in any court of record for…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  2. Ring v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
  3. United States v. MechanikSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  4. Wood v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  5. Sattazahn v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 2003

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API