J.D. v. Hegyi
234 Ariz. 210
Ariz. Ct. App.2014Background
- T.D. is charged with sexually abusing his then-stepdaughter, M.M. (the victim). Proceedings began in 2011 when M.M. was 16; multiple continuances led to M.M. turning 18 before trial.
- M.M.’s mother, J.D. (Mother), asserted victims’ rights on behalf of M.M. and herself from the outset while M.M. was a minor.
- After M.M. reached majority, T.D. moved to compel Mother to submit to a defense interview; the superior court granted the motion.
- Mother sought special-action relief, arguing her statutory right to refuse a defense interview as a parent who exercised a minor’s victims’ rights continued throughout the proceedings even after M.M. turned 18.
- The appellate court accepted jurisdiction because the right could be lost if reviewed post-trial and the question presented was one of first impression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a parent who exercised a minor’s victims’ rights may continue to refuse a defense interview after the victim turns 18 | Mother: Her refusal-right endures for the duration of the criminal proceedings and thus survives the victim’s majority | T.D.: Once the victim is an adult, the parent no longer may invoke the minor-based statutory refusal right | A parent loses the right under A.R.S. § 13-4433(G) to refuse a defense interview once the victim reaches 18; the parent may be compelled to submit to interview |
| Whether the parent can be compelled to disclose information learned while the victim was a minor | Mother: Impliedly argued such prior communications are protected by her continuing refusal-right | T.D.: Seeks full interview, including matters from victim’s minority | Court: Even though parent may be compelled to sit for interview post-majority, the parent cannot be forced to divulge information received while the victim was a minor; scope must exclude such subjects |
| Whether prior case law (Uriarte, Lincoln) requires a different result | Mother: Relies on Uriarte and Lincoln to support continued parental rights attendance/refusal | T.D.: Argues those cases do not address post-majority refusal of interviews | Court: Uriarte and Lincoln do not control this situation; they involved different issues and did not address the victim attaining majority |
| Statutory construction: whether parent becomes a "victim" or retains derivative rights after victim’s majority | Mother: Interprets statute to preserve parental refusal through proceedings | T.D.: Statutory language conditions parental authority on the victim’s minority; rights vest in the legally defined victim | Court: Statute plainly limits parental exercise of victims’ rights to when the victim is a minor; parent is not a victim in her own right absent statutory text |
Key Cases Cited
- Romley v. Schneider, 202 Ariz. 362 (App. 2002) (articulates special-action jurisdiction where rights would be irreparably lost if reviewed only post-trial)
- State ex rel. Pennartz v. Olcavage, 200 Ariz. 582 (App. 2001) (explains criteria for special-action jurisdiction)
- State ex rel. McDougall v. Superior Court (Martinez), 186 Ariz. 218 (App. 1996) (apply plain statutory language when unambiguous)
- State v. Uriarte, 194 Ariz. 275 (App. 1999) (addressed parental presence/rights during trial when victim remained a minor)
- Lincoln v. Holt, 215 Ariz. 21 (App. 2007) (held a parent may refuse to be interviewed under § 13-4433 but did not decide post-majority application)