Posted: November 17, 2016
Rules of Criminal Procedure – Comment Period Closed January 1, 2017
URCrP004 Amend. This rule was previously published for public comment and the committee made changes in response to the comments. The committee continues to review and refine the processes for filing informations.
URCrP004a New. The proposed new rule will address the process for prosecutions commenced by indictment.
URCrP004b New. The proposed new rule will address the process for prosecutions commenced by citation.
URCrP004, 4a, 4b Committee Note The note explains the changes that are made in response to comments received.
URCrP006 Amend. This rule was previously published for public comment and the committee made changes in response to the comments. The committee continues to review and refine the processes for issuing warrants and summones.
URCrP029 Amend. The proposed amendment will eliminate the presiding officer of the Judicial Council as a person to whom disqualification affidavits may be referred.
URCrP004b New. The proposed new rule will address the process for prosecutions commenced by citation.
The language in this rule needs to include language that says the Information shall be filed in the existing case number if one exists. Too often, duplicate case #’s are being created by the prosecutor efiling an Information without specifying the existing case #.
The work indictment in proposed rule $a should be changed to “information”. The word indictment will confuse the process because may be charged by indictment through a grand jury but that is a completely different context. The way it reads also conflicts with proposed rule 4b that talks about the filing of an information.
The word indictment in proposed rule $a should be changed to “information”. The word indictment will confuse the process because may be charged by indictment through a grand jury but that is a completely different context. The way it reads also conflicts with proposed rule 4b that talks about the filing of an information.
I am unable to find the “comment” link in any of the above proposed changes; could someone help me with this? Additionally, I think if the purpose of rule P004b is to make it easier for pro se litigants to successfully navigate the rule, it ought to be re-written in non-lawyeresque language with very straightforward, 1, 2, 3 instructions that explain not only time constraints, but also farther forward looking anticipatory items such as what happens when a police officer takes a while to serve someone, what happens when a person calls past the 14th day and is told there is nothing filed yet (my experience is they think it has disappeared, whether or not we can incorporate email addresses and cell phone numbers into the citation so we have less warrants and more actual direct contacts; etc…