View a step-by-step guide on subpoenaing out-of-state-witnesses in criminal proceedings.
| Jurisdiction | Uniform Act to Secure Attendance of Witnesses from Without a State in Criminal Proceedings | Availability of Subpoena Duces Tecum Under Uniform Act. | Is Uniform Act Available During Grand Jury Phase? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | Ala. Code §§ 12-21-280 to 12-21-285 (LexisNexis 2020). | Yes: Ex parte Simmons, 668 So. 2d 901, 903 (Ala. Crim. App. 1995). | Yes: Ala. Code § 12-21-281(1) (LexisNexis 2020). |
| Alaska | Alaska Stat. §§ 12.50.010 to 12.50.080 (2020). | Unknown | Yes: Alaska Stat. § Sec. 12.50.010(a)(2020). |
| Arizona | Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 13-4091 to 13-4096 (2020). | Yes: Johnson v. O'Connor, 327 P.3d 218, 223 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). | Yes: Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4091(1) (2020). |
| Arkansas | Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-43-402 to 409 (2020). | Unknown | Yes: Ark. Code Ann. § 16-43-402 (2020). |
| California | Cal. Penal Code §§1334.1 to 1334.6 (2020). | Unknown | Yes: Cal. Penal Code §1334.1(a) (2020). |
| Colorado | Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 16-9-201 to 16-9-205 (2020). | Unknown | Yes: Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-9-201(3) (2020). |
| Connecticut | Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-82i (2020). | Yes: In re Mallory S., 2009 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1386, at *2 (Conn. Super. Ct. May 20, 2009) (unpublished). | Yes: Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-82i (a) (2020). |
| Delaware | Del. Code Ann. tit.11 §§ 3521-3526 (2020). | Yes: United States v. Monjar, 154 F.2d 954, 958 (3d Cir. 1946) (recognizing a Delaware request for documents as permitted through the act). | Yes: Del. Code Ann. tit.11 § 3521(3)(2020). |
| Florida | Fla. Stat. Ann. §§ 942.01 to 942.06 (LexisNexis 2020). | Yes: State v. Bastos, 985 So. 2d 37, 40 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008) (recognizing a request for a witness to bring documents with them); Ulloa v. CMI, Inc., 133 So. 3d 914, 921-25 (Fla. 2013) (recognizing requests for only documents). | Yes: Fla. Stat. Ann. § 942.01(1) (LexisNexis 2020). |
| Georgia | Ga. Code Ann. §§ 24-13-90 to 24-13-97 (2020). | Yes: Wollesen v. State, 529 S.E.2d 630, 633 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000) ("Uniform Act necessarily implies the authority to issue a subpoena duces tecum."); Yeary v. State, 724 S.E.2d 427 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012) (prohibiting requests for documents only). | Yes: Ga. Code Ann. § 24-13-90(4) (2020). |
| Hawaii | Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 836-1 to 836-6 (LexisNexis 2020). | Unknown | Yes: Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 836-1. (LexisNexis 2020). |
| Idaho | Idaho Code Ann. § 19-3005 (2020). | Unknown | No: "Idaho has not adopted the 1936 changes which made the act applicable to grand jury proceedings as well as criminal cases and provided for the arrest of witnesses under certain conditions." Idaho Code Ann § 19-3005 (2020)(Compiler's Notes). |
| Illinois | 725 Ill. Comp. Stat. §§ 220/1 to 220/6 (2020). | 725 Ill. Comp. Stat. 220/1 (2020) (contains duces tecum within statutory definition of summons). | Yes: 725 Ill. Comp. Stat. § 220/1 (2020). |
| Indiana | Ind. Code §§ 35-37-5-1 to 35-37-5-9 (2020). | Yes: Forbes v. State, 810 N.E.2d 681, 683 (Ind. 2004) (acknowledging that the Uniform Act is designed to compel witnesses or documents). | Yes: Ind. Code § 35-37-5-1 (2020). |
| Iowa | Iowa Code §§ 819.1 to 819.5 (2020). | Unknown | Yes: Iowa Code § 819.1 (2020). |
| Kansas | Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 22-4201 to 4206 (2020). | Yes: Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. Miller, 583 P.2d 1042, 1047 (Kan. Ct. App. 1978). | Yes: Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-4201 (2020). |
| Kentucky | Ky. Rev. Stat. §§ 421.230 to 421.270 (LexisNexis 2020). | Maybe: Lokk v. CMI, Inc., 457 S.W.3d 330, 338 (Ky. Ct. App. 2015) (acknowledging possible use of Uniform Act to secure breathalyzer source code, but denying summons on other grounds). | Yes: Ky. Rev. Stat. § 421.230(1) (LexisNexis 2020). |
| Louisiana | La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 741 to 745 (2020). | Unknown | Yes: La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 741 (2020). |
| Maine | Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 15 §§ 1411 to 1415 (2020). | Maybe: State v. Dowling, 453 A.2d 496, 499-500 (Me. 1982) (recognizing medical records could have been be secured through Uniform Act from another state). | Yes: Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 15 § 1412(3)(2020). |
| Maryland | Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. §§ 9-301 to 9-307 (2020). | Yes: In re State of Cal. for Cty. of L.A., Grand Jury Investigation, 471 A.2d 1141, 1147 (Md. 1984). | Yes: Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 9-301(d) (2020). |
| Massachusetts | Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 233, §§ 13A to 13D (LexisNexis 2020). | Yes: In re Grand Jury of State of N.Y., 397 N.E.2d 686,690 (Mass. App. Ct. 1979). | Yes: Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 233, §13A (LexisNexis 2020). |
| Michigan | Mich. Comp. Laws Serv. §§ 767.91 to 767.95 (LexisNexis 2020). | Unknown | Yes: Mich. Comp. Laws Serv. § 767.91(a) (LexisNexis 2020). |
| Minnesota | Minn. Stat. §§ 634.06 to 634.09 (2020). | Unknown | Yes: Minn. Stat. § 634.06(a) (2020). |
| Mississippi | Miss. Code Ann. §§ 99-9-27 to 99-9-35 (2020). | Unknown | Yes: Miss. Code Ann. § 99-9-29 (2020). |
| Missouri | Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 491.400 to 491.450 (2020). | Unknown | Yes: Mo. Rev. Stat. § 491.400(3) (2020). |
| Montana | Mont. Code Ann. §§ 46-15-112 to 46-15-120 (2020). | Unknown | Yes: Mont. Code Ann. § 46-15-112(1) (2020). |
| Nebraska | Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-1906 to 29-1911 (LexisNexis 2020). | Maybe: State v. Pratt, 733 N.W.2d 868, 872 (Neb. 2007) (acknowledging it was valid to certify a request for subpoena duces tecum to another state court). | Yes: Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1906 (1) (LexisNexis 2020). |
| Nevada | Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 174.395 to 174.445 (LexisNexis 2020). | Yes: Wyman v. State, 217 P.3d 572, 575 (Nev. 2009) (allowing for subpoena duces tecum that are ancillary to a request for testimony of an out of state witness). | Yes: Nev. Rev. Stat. § 174.405(3) (LexisNexis 2020). |
| New Hampshire | N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 613:1 to 613:6 (LexisNexis 2020). | Unknown | Yes: N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 613:1(I) (LexisNexis 2020). |
| New Jersey | N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 2A:81-18 to 2A:81-23 (2020). | Yes: In re Saperstein, 104 A.2d 842, 846 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1954). | Yes: N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:81-18 (2020). |
| New Mexico | N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 31-8-1 to 31-8-6 (LexisNexis 2020). | Unknown | Yes: N.M. Stat. Ann. § 31-8-1 (LexisNexis 2020). |
| New York | N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 640.10 (LexisNexis 2020). | Yes: In re Wash., 198 N.Y.S.2d 897, 900 (N.Y. 1960) (acknowledging that the Uniform Act extends to subpoena duces tecum). | Yes: N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 640.10(1) (LexisNexis 2020). |
| North Carolina | N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 15A-811 to 816 (2020). | Unknown | Yes: N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-811 (2020). |
| North Dakota | N.D. Cent. Code §§ 31-03-25 to 31-03-31 (2020). | Unknown | No: Grand jury investigation is not explicitly mentioned in statute but criminal prosecution is. N.D. Cent. Code §§ 31-03-25 to 31-03-31 (2020). |
| Ohio | Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§ 2939.25 to 2939.29 (LexisNexis 2020). | Unknown | Yes: Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2939.25(a) (LexisNexis 2020). |
| Oklahoma | Okla. Stat. tit. 22, §§ 721 to 727 (2020). | Unknown | Yes: Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 721 (2020). |
| Oregon | Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 136.623 to 136.637 (2020). | Unknown | Yes: Or. Rev. Stat. § 136.623 (1) (2020). |
| Pennsylvania | 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 5961 to 5965 (2020). | Yes: Marcus v. Diulus, 363 A.2d 1205, 1208 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1976) (acknowledging subpoena duces tecum was available in Uniform Act). | Yes: 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5962 (2020). |
| Rhode Island | 12 R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 12-16-1 to 12-16-13 (2020). | Unknown | Yes: 12 R.I. Gen. Laws § 12-16-2(b) (2020). |
| South Carolina | S.C. Code Ann. §§ 19-9-10 to 19-9-130 (2020). | Yes: South Carolina v. Martin, 2018 S.C. C.P. LEXIS 2, at *5 (S.C. C.P March 21, 2018) (acknowledging act could be used for subpoena duces tecum)(unpublished). | Yes: S.C. Code Ann. § 19-9-20 (2020). |
| South Dakota | S.D. Codified Laws §§ 23A-14-14 to 23A-14-24 (2020). | Unknown | Yes: S.D. Codified Laws § 23A-14-14 (1) (2020). |
| Tennessee | Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-17-201 to 40-17-210 (2020). | Unknown | Yes: Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-17-202(3) (2020). |
| Texas | Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Art. 24.28 (2019). | Maybe: Herrera v. State, Nos. 05-15-00119-CR, 05-15-00120-CR,05-15-00121-CR, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 5414, at *22 n.7 (Tex. Ct. App. May 23, 2016) (unpublished). | Yes: Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Art. 24.28 § 2 (2019). |
| Utah | Utah Code Ann. §§ 77-21-1 to 77-21-5 (LexisNexis 2020). | Unknown | Yes: Utah Code Ann. § 77-21-2 to 77-21-3 (2020). |
| Vermont | Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 13 §§ 6641 to 6649 (2020). | Unknown | Yes: Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 13 § 6641 (2020). |
| Virginia | Va. Code Ann. §§ 19.2-272 to 19.2-282 (2020). | Unknown | Yes: Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-272 (2020). |
| Washington | Wash. Rev. Code §§ 10.55.010 to 10.55.120 (LexisNexis 2020). | Unknown | Yes: Wash. Rev. Code § 10.55.010 (LexisNexis 2020). |
| West Virginia | W. Va. Code Ann. §§ 62-6A-1 to 62-6A-6 (LexisNexis 2020). | Yes: State v. Harman, 270 S.E.2d 146, 153-54 (W. Va. 1980). | Yes: W. Va. Code Ann. §§ 62-6A-1 (LexisNexis 2020). |
| Wisconsin | Wis. Stat. § 976.02 (2020). | Unknown | Yes: Wis. Stat. § 976.02 (1) (2020). |
| Wyoming | Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 7-11-404 to 406 (2020). | Unknown | No: Grand jury investigation is not explicitly mentioned in statute but criminal prosecution is. Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 7-11-404 to 406 (2020). |
| American Samoa | No: In re Proceedings to Compel the Attendance of May Fitiausi, 29 Am. Samoa 2d 71 (1995) | N/A | N/A |
| District of Columbia | D.C. Code §§ 23-1501 to 1504 (2020). | Unknown | Yes: D.C. Code § 23-1501(1) (2020). |
| Guam | Other Law: 6 Guam Code Ann. § 7603 (2020) ("Whenever any mandate, writ, or commission is issued out of any court of record in any other territory, state, district, or foreign jurisdiction, or whenever upon notice or agreement, it is required to take the testimony of a witness or witnesses in Guam, witnesses may be compelled to appear and testify in the same manner and by the same process and proceeding as may be employed for the purpose of taking testimony in proceedings pending in Guam."). | N/A | N/A |
| Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands | Unknown | Unknown | Unknown |
| Puerto Rico | Yes: P.R. Laws Ann. 34 §§ 1471 to 1475 (2020). | Unknown | No: People v. Superior Court, 98 P.R.R. 189 (P.R. 1969). |
| U.S. Virgin Islands | Yes: 5 V.I.C. §§ 3861 to 3865 (2020). | Yes: People of the V.I. v. Steinhauer, No. ST-10-CR-F240, 2010 V.I. LEXIS 81, at *5-6 (V.I. Super. Ct. Nov. 23, 2010) (unpublished). | Yes: 5 V.I.C. § 3861(2020). |
| Navajo Nation | Yes: 17 Navajo Trib. Code §§ 1970 to 1974 (2020). | Unknown | Yes: 17 Navajo Trib. Code § 1970(A) (2020). |
| Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma | Yes: 9 Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma Code §§ 721 to 727 (2020). | Unknown | Yes: 9 Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma Code § 721 (2020). |
