Cited by

Ct., (without sufficient facts “we presume .

(“[A]n accused is entitled to due process during grand jury proceedings.”); (“It is a requirement of due process that the grand jury be fair and impartial.”); Marston’s, 114 Ariz. at 268 (Gordon, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (“[A]t least some due process requirements apply to grand jury proceedings.”).

Fulminante, (finding no error in use in grand jury hearing of confession found involuntary and inadmissible on appeal from initial conviction); (“hearsay evidence in a grand jury proceeding is not objectionable”).

Bashir, 226 Ariz. at 355, ¶ 13 (non-exculpatory evidence and evidence relating to witness credibility and factual inconsistencies); Trebus, 189 Ariz. at 625 (same); (“[T]he grand jury has the right to every person’s evidence, absent a constitutional, common law, or statutory privilege.”).

See Rule 13.2(a) ([A]n indictment “shall be a plain, concise statement of the facts sufficiently definite to inform the defendant of the offense charged.”); , (“[Ojne function of the indictment is to give the defendant notice of the crime charged so that the defendant may prepare a defense.”).

¶ 11, the Court stated that an order granting a motion to dismiss is reviewed for abuse of discretion

¶11 We review an order granting a motion to dismiss for abuse of discretion, and review issues of law, including issues of statutory interpretation, de novo, State ex rel.

Musser, , ; , Steiger, 162 Ariz. at 145 n. 3, 781 P.2d at 623 n. 3.

Musser, Steiger, 162 Ariz. at 145 n.3, 781 P.2d at 623 n.3.

§ 13-2702 , uttering “fighting words,” see State v. Brahy, 22 Ariz.App.

2440, 2447 , 49 L.Ed.2d 310 (1976) (vagueness); , (overbreadth); Steiger, 162 Ariz. at 144 , 781 P.2d at 622 (vagueness).

§ 13-2702(A); -61 , -48 (1984).

2561, 2568 , 45 L.Ed.2d 648 (1975); see also Matter of Juvenile Appeal No. 74802-2, , , , 1050 (1984); Lawrence H. Tribe, American Constitutional Law § 12-32, 1035-37 (2d ed. 1988).

where the supreme court stated that “hearsay evidence in a grand jury proceeding is not objectionable.” Franzi, 139 Ariz. at 565 , 679 P.2d at 1052 (citation omitted).

(court rejected the argument that false swearing statute was unconstitutionally vague).

839 , 31 L.Ed.2d 110 (1972)

(recognizing standing to challenge an overbroad regulation of speech even though the challenger asserts the rights of third parties); see also Jennings, 107 Ariz. at 561 , 490 P.2d at 567 (reporters, as members of the public, have standing to challenge a gag order).