Day v. Superior Court In and For County of Maricopa
| Decision Date | 14 May 1991 |
| Docket Number | CA-SA,No. 1,1 |
| Citation | 823 P.2d 82,170 Ariz. 215 |
| Parties | Thomas DAY, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT of the State of Arizona, in and for the COUNTY OF MARICOPA, The Honorable Joseph D. Howe, a judge thereof, Respondent Judge. STATE of Arizona, ex rel., Richard M. ROMLEY, Maricopa County Attorney, and Tim Mattfedt, Real Parties in Interest. 91-060. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Petitioner Thomas Day has been charged with theft, a class 4 felony. Petitioner sought to depose the alleged victim pursuant to Rule 15.3, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The victim elected not to give petitioner a pretrial interview, asserting § 2.1(A)(5) of the Victim's Bill of Rights. The trial judge thereafter denied petitioner's motion for deposition of the victim. Petitioner files this petition for special action, seeking review of the trial court's order. Because this case solely involves questions of law and is of statewide importance, we accept jurisdiction, but deny relief.
The Victim's Bill of Rights provides in part:
SECTION 2.1 (A) To preserve and protect victims' rights to justice and due process, a victim of crime has a right:
* * * * * *
5. 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.
* * * * * *
11. To have all rules governing criminal procedure and the admissibility of evidence in all criminal proceedings protect victims' rights and to have these rules be subject to amendment or repeal by the legislature to ensure the protection of these rights.
Petitioner's primary argument appears to be that application of § 2.1(A)(5) contravenes the supreme court's holding in Slayton v. Shumway, 166 Ariz. 87, 800 P.2d 590 (1990), as it affects rules of criminal procedure not related solely to victim's rights and thereby violates the separation of powers doctrine. Slayton v. Shumway held that the rulemaking provision of § 2.1(A)(11) "deals only with procedural rules pertaining to victims and not with the substantive general subject of the rulemaking power." Id. at 92, 800 P.2d at 595. Thus, Proposition 104, the Victim's Bill of Rights, did not violate the single subject rule which prohibits combining dissimilar provisions in an initiative proposal. Id. The supreme court did state that transferring all rulemaking power to the legislature would involve separation of powers; however, it held that § 2.1(A)(11) merely provides the mechanism to protect rights created by the Victim's Bill of Rights. The court identified subsections 1-10 as creating those procedural rights.
Petitioner contends that the application of § 2.1(A)(5) of the Victim's Bill of Rights abrogates Rule 15.3 because if a victim asserts a right to refuse to grant a defendant a pretrial interview, the defendant will be precluded from deposing a material witness pursuant to Rule 15.3. Petitioner argues that this result affects the Rules of Criminal Procedure in a manner not condoned or contemplated by the court in Slayton v. Shumway. We disagree.
Rule 15.3 provides:
a. Availability. Upon motion of any party or a witness, the court may in its discretion order the examination of any person except the defendant upon oral deposition under the following circumstances:
(1) A party shows that the person's testimony is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ariz. Attorneys for Criminal Justice v. Ducey
...Maricopa , 192 Ariz. 371, 373, 965 P.2d 763 (1998), superseded by statute on other grounds ; Day v Superior Court In and For the County of Maricopa , 170 Ariz. 215, 217, 823 P.2d 82 (Ct. App. 1991) (holding that "the court's authority is limited by the Victim's Bill of Rights"); State v. Le......
-
State v. Roscoe
...a defendant's right under Rule 15 to interview or otherwise seek discovery from an unwilling victim."); Day v. Superior Court, 170 Ariz. 215, 217, 823 P.2d 82, 84 (App.1991) ("The Victims' Bill of Rights precludes the trial court from ordering the deposition of a victim who has indicated an......
-
State ex rel. Romley v. Superior Court In and For County of Maricopa
...a trial court from ordering the deposition of a victim who has refused a defense request for a pretrial interview. Day v. Superior Court, 170 Ariz. 215, 823 P.2d 82 (App.1991). The federal constitution gives the defense no greater right to discovery than exists under state law. See Pennsylv......
-
Ariz. Attorneys for Criminal Justice v. Ducey
...to compel a witness interview, deposition, or other discovery request made by the defense); Day v. Superior Court In and For County of Maricopa, 823 P.2d 82, 84 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991) ("the court's authority is limited by the Victim's Bill of Rights"); State v. Lee, 355 P.3d 621, 624 (Ariz. ......