This section discusses numerous victims' rights case law issues which are outlined in the annotations section.  Also included are the copies of the cases sited in the annotations.

Annotations

Cases

Disclaimer

Annotations

1.  Victim’s and defendant’s rights cannot conflict.

2.  Jury’s duty with respect to victim’s rights.

3.  Prosecutor’s improper statements referring to victim’s rights.

4.  Defendant’s right to cross-examine victim.

5. Application and interpretation of Victim’s Bill of Rights.

5.1 – Cases and proceedings.

5.2 – Definition of “victim.”

5.3 – Standing of victim.

5.4 – Language of provisions.

5.5  – Scope of rulemaking authority pursuant to Victim’s Bill of Rights.

6.  Duty of court to impose restitution for benefit of crime victim.

7.  Victims entitled to restitution.

8.  Victim’s presence in courtroom during proceedings.

9.  Victim impact statements.

10.   State’s duty to inform victim of his or her rights.

11.   Victim’s right to refuse to participate in proceedings & procedures.

11.1 –Defendant’s ability at trial to comment on victim’s refusal to participate

Cases

State v. Warner, 168 Ariz. 261, 812 P.2d 1079 (1990)

Day v. Superior Court, Maricopa County, 170 Ariz. 215, 823 P.2d 82 ( App. Div. 1, 1991)

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

S.A. v. Superior Court, Maricopa County, 171 Ariz. 529, 831 P.2d 1297 (App. Div. 1, 1992)

State v. O’Neil, 172 Ariz. 180, 836 P.2d 393 (App. Div. 2, 1992)

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

State ex rel. Dean v. County of Tucson, 173 Ariz. 515, 844 P.2d 1165 (App. Div. 2, 1993)

Knutson v. Maricopa County ex rel Romley, 175 Ariz. 445, 857 P.2d 1299 (App. Div. 1, 1993)

State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 858 P.2d 1152 (1993)

State ex rel Hance v. Ariz. Bd. Pardons & Paroles, 178 Ariz. 591, 875 P.2d 824 (App. Div. 1, 1993)

State v. Contreras, 180 Ariz. 450, 885 P.2d 138 (App. Div. 1, 1994)

State v. Clinton, 181 Ariz. 299, 890 P.2d 74 (App. Div. 1, 1995)

State ex rel Romley v. Superior Court, Maricopa County, 181 Ariz. 378, 891 P.2d 246 (App. Div. 1, 1995)

State v. Gonzales, 181 Ariz. 502, 892 P.2d 838 (1995)

Benton v. Superior Court, Navajo County, 182 Ariz. 466, 897 P.2d 1352 (App. Div. 1, 1995)

State v. Krum, 183 Ariz. 288, 903 P.2d 596 (1995)

State v. Lamberton, 183 Ariz. 47, 899 P.2d 939 (1995)

State v. Blackmon, 184 Ariz. 196, 908 P.2d 10 (App. Div. 1, 1995)

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

State v. Gulbrandson, 184 Ariz. 46, 906 P.2d 579 (1995)

A.H. v. Superior Court, Mojave County, 184 Ariz. 627, 911 P.2d 633 (App. Div. 1 1996)

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

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

State v. Towery, 186 Ariz. 168, 920 P.2d 290 (1996)

State ex rel. McDougall v. Superior Court, Maricopa Cnty, 186 Ariz. 218, 920 P.2d 784 (App. Div. 1, 1996)

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

State v. Taggart, 186 Ariz. 569, 925 P.2d 710 (App. Div. 1, 1996)

In re Juvenile Action Nos. JV-512600 and JV-512797, 187 Ariz. 419, 930 P.2d 496 (App. Div. 1, 1996)

State v. Mann, 188 Ariz. 220, 934 P.2d 784 (1997)

In re Sean M.,189 Ariz. 323, 942 P.2d 482 (App. Div. 1, 1997)

State v. Riggs, 189 Ariz. 327, 942 P.2d 1159 (1997)

Champlin v. Sargeant, 192 Ariz. 371, 965 P.2d 763 (1998)

State ex rel. Napolitano v. Brown, — P.2d —, 297 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 5, 1999 WL 356436 (Ariz.)

Disclaimer

These materials are designed to help attorneys acting in a pro bono capacity on behalf of crime victims who seek to assist or protect their rights on expressed cases.  Although the materials are carefully reviewed, and significant editorial enhancements have been provided by knowledgeable editors, in dealing with specific legal matters, attorneys should research and review original sources of authority.

Neither Arizona Voice for Crime Victims, nor the Crime Victim Law Institute, make either express or implied warranties regarding the use of these materials. Each attorney must depend on his or her own research, knowledge of the law, and expertise in using or modifying these materials.

Drafting forms for court is essentially rendering legal advice.  No handbook can assume that responsibility, and this handbook does not assume such responsibility.  It is intended to serve only as a guide for the practitioner, and assist in keeping the costs of representation low – an essential ingredient for the success and longevity of any pro bono effort.  The responsibility of preparing the forms and all other documents that are to be submitted to courts ultimately remain, and entirely rest with, the individual practitioner.

The forms in this website are suggestions only.  They have been carefully checked for conformity with the law as of the date of publication. Still, the facts of every case will necessarily require a variation or multiple variations from the forms presented in the binder.

It is our hope that all those who are dedicated to preserving and protecting the rights of crime victims in the criminal justice process will find these materials useful and helpful.  We sincerely thank all those who have chosen to dedicate their time and talents to this most worthy cause.