State Ex Rel. Preimsberg v. Rosenblatt
Arizona Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
HOLOHAN, Justice.
Respondents George R. O’Barts, Belva O’Barts and Granite Development Company were indicted for fraud. The motion by respondents to quash the indictment was granted by the respondent judge. We accepted jurisdiction of the petition by the state for a special action.
The issue presented is whether Rule 16.7 of the 1973 Rules of Criminal Procedure allows the trial court to test the factual sufficiency of an indictment.
The record reflects that, despite the designation of the motion as one to quash, the matter was correctly treated as a motion to dismiss, and the record further…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- United States v. CalandraSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Costello v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1956
- Holt v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
3Cited by13 opinions
- State v. BaumannArizona Supreme Court · 1980
- Chronis v. SteinleArizona Supreme Court · 2009
- Baines v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR PIMA COUNTYCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1984
- State v. KaminArizona Supreme Court · 1986
- S allen/J Allen v. Hon. sanders/state of ArizonaArizona Supreme Court · 2016
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.