of the grand jury terminates on the expiration of the term of court for which it is summoned " (quoting 38 C.J.S. Grand Juries § 32, at 1023)). Consequently, the cited cases are of limited help when construing the current statute. € 39 The current statute refers to the "efficient administration of justice." Colorado courts have applied the abuse of discretion standard to other provisions involving similar terminology. See, e.g., People v. Lee, 93 P.3d 544, 549 (Colo.App.2003) (deciding whether to disqualify a district attorney under criteria including "the orderly or efficient administration of justice"). € 40 Further, other courts have held that a trial court has discretion in deciding whether to extend a grand jury's term. See Korman v. United States, 486 F.2d 926, 933 (7th Cir.1973) (<HOLDING>). 141 To say that a court has discretion in
holding the trial court erred in ordering the transcription of grand jury proceedings so that it could intervene in the operations of the grand jury holding that a district court may not construe an untimely notice of appeal as a motion for extension of time holding that a defendants false grand jury testimony was insufficient to establish perjury where the defendant was called before the grand jury for the mere purpose of laying the foundation for a perjury prosecution such testimony was immaterial to the grand jurys purpose holding a stay appealable because the state suit was likely to continue beyond the expiration of the federal grand jurys term with the practical effect of a dismissal of the proceedings holding that extension of a federal grand jurys term was within the discretionary powers of the district court