§ 7.4 VICTIM'S RIGHTS

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

§ 7.4 VICTIM'S RIGHTS

Principle of Law: Trial courts are to follow the plain language of the Victims' Bill of Rights (VBR) and should avoid making ad hoc exceptions. The provisions of the Arizona Constitution govern over conflicting rules and statutes. Victims' rights include the right to be present and heard at certain proceedings, to a speedy trial, to refuse the defense's request for a pre-trial interview, and to restitution. Victims cannot prevent disclosure of Brady material held by the prosecutor and may not refuse to appear or testify at court proceedings.

§ 7.4.1 Construction

In Arizona, the laws applying to crime victims may be found in the Arizona Constitution, Article II, Section 2.1; the Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 13, Chapter 40; and the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 39. Although the Arizona Constitution grants constitutional rights to victims, those rights are also addressed in Rule 39 and Title 13, Chapter 40. "[This] enumeration in the constitution of certain rights for victims shall not be construed to deny or disparage others granted by the legislature [like those in Title 13, Chapter 40] or retained by the victims." Ariz. Const. art. II, § 2.1(E).

§ 7.4.1.1 Arizona Constitution Governs

Stapleford v. Houghton,185 Ariz. 560, 917 P.2d 703 (1996)

The VBR grants certain rights to those who qualify as "victims." When interpreting the VBR, the provisions in the Arizona Constitution governs over conflicting court rules and statutes, since the Arizona Supreme Court is bound by clear and unambiguous terms of the State Constitution.

State ex rel. Romley v. Dairman,208 Ariz. 484, 95 P.3d 548 (App. Div. 1, 2004)

The constitutional and statutory mandate is to "preserve" the rights that victims had prior to the passage of the constitutional provision and any subsequent legislation.

§ 7.4.1.2 No Ad Hoc Exceptions

Knapp v. Martone,170 Ariz. 237, 823 P.2d 685 (1992)

Courts must follow and apply the plain language of the VBR and are not permitted to make ad hoc exceptions based upon the perceived exigencies of each case.

§ 7.4.1.3 Defendants' Rights vs. Victims' Rights

State ex rel. Romley v. Superior Court (Roper),172 Ariz. 232, 836 P.2d 445 (App. Div. 1, 1992)

When there is a direct conflict, the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution prevails over a provision of a state constitution, such as the VBR, by virtue of the Supremacy Clause. In this case, the right at issue was defendant's access to the victim's psychological medical records which could possibly be used to exculpate the defendant or impeach the victim's credibility. The court balanced the language in the VBR granting the victim the right "to refuse an interview, deposition, or other discovery request by the defendant, the defendant's attorney, or other person acting on behalf of the defendant," against defendant's right of access to any evidence favorable to the defense and material to either guilt or punishment. The court remanded the case to the trial court for a determination of whether any portion of the medical records was essential to the defendant's defense or to the victim's credibility as a witness.

State v. Superior Court (Coronado),186 Ariz. 363, 922 P.2d 927 (App. Div. 1, 1996)

Under certain circumstances, the defendant's right to gather exculpatory information can take precedence over the victim's right to be left alone. In this case, the VBR did not extend to the parents of a deceased adult child where the victim's death was not directly related to the alleged crimes.

State ex rel. Smith v. Reeves, 226 Ariz. 419, 250 P.3d 196 (App. Div. 1, 2011)

Minor victim's parents are not required to prove that the victim died as a result of criminal conduct by defendant before they can invoke victim status and decline a defense an interview. The court analyzed the facts under Coronado, and determined that, unlike the parents of an adult victim, the parents of a minor victim are entitled to invoke the rights and protections accorded crime victims on behalf of their child or on their own behalf, whether the minor victim has survived or is deceased.

§ 7.4.1.4 Violations

FDIC v. Colosi, 194 Ariz. 114, 977 P.2d 836 (App. Div. 1, 1998)

Victims may institute proceedings for a special action seeking relief from an order denying rights guaranteed to victims under the VBR and any implementing legislation or court rules. Such proceedings may also be instituted by the prosecutor at the request of the victim.

§ 7.4.2 Who Are Victims?

A.R.S. § 13-4401(19)

"Victim" means a person against whom the criminal offense has been committed, including a minor, or if the person is killed or incapacitated, the person's spouse, parent, child, grandparent or sibling, any other person related to the person by consanguinity or affinity to the second degree or any other lawful representative of the person, except if the person or the person's spouse, parent, child, grandparent, sibling, other person related to the person by consanguinity or affinity to the second degree or other lawful representative is in custody for an offense or is the accused.

State v. Superior Court (Coronado),186 Ariz. 363, 922 P.2d 927 (App. Div. 1, 1996)

The parents of the deceased qualify as "victims" only if the deceased was killed by the criminal offenses with which the defendant is charged.

State v. Guadagni,218 Ariz. 1, 6, 178 P.3d 473, 478 (App. Div. 2, 2008)

Persons are "victims" of a crime when the elements of the offense necessarily involve unlawful interaction with those persons or their property.

State v. Nichols, 224 Ariz. 569, 573, 233 P.3d 1148, 1152 (App. Div. 2, 2010), review denied (Sept. 21, 2010)

Rights conferred by the VBR "arise on the arrest or formal charging of the person or persons who are alleged to be responsible for a criminal offense against a victim." They remain enforceable until the "final disposition of the charges, including acquittal or dismissal of the charges, all post-conviction release and relief proceedings and the discharge of all criminal proceedings relating to restitution." Such rights cease to exist only "[a]fter the final termination of a criminal prosecution by dismissal with prejudice or acquittal."

§ 7.4.2.1 No Physical Injury Needed

State ex rel. Romley v. Superior Court (Cunningham),184 Ariz. 409, 909 P.2d 476 (App. Div. 1, 1995)

Courts are required to follow and apply the plain language of the VBR in interpreting its scope. A person does not need to suffer physical injury to be a "victim" under the VBR. In this case, the "victim" was a person whose car was crashed into by the drunk defendant. The person was a "victim" since he was placed in danger of physical harm and suffered property damage.

§ 7.4.2.2 Peace Officers Can Be Victims

State v. Roscoe,185 Ariz. 68, 912 P.2d 1297 (1996)

Police officers who are assaulted in the course of their duties are "victims" under the VBR and...