250 P.3d 1139
Ariz.2011Background
- Miller, charged with five counts of first degree murder, seeks ex parte hearing related to pretrial mitigation investigation.
- Victims object under the Victims' Bill of Rights to be present at all proceedings where defendant has right to be present.
- Trial court allows ex parte hearing about out-of-state summonses for mitigation discovery; Victims seek relief via special action.
- Court of Appeals vacates trial court’s order, citing Victims’ Rights and absence of Arizona authority for ex parte mitigation proceedings.
- Arizona Supreme Court grants review to decide if victims may attend such ex parte hearing and if Rule 15.9(b) authorizes it.
- Court concludes: victims are not entitled to attend the ex parte pretrial mitigation hearing; Rule 15.9(b) permits ex parte proceedings when confidentiality is needed and defendant has no right to be present.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether victims have a right to attend an ex parte mitigation hearing. | Morehart: victims must be present under art. 2 § 2.1(A)(3). | Miller/State: hearing is purely procedural; victim attendance not required. | No; victims not entitled to attend. |
| Whether Rule 15.9(b) permits ex parte proceedings in this context. | Rule 15.9(b) allows ex parte proceedings for confidentiality if properly shown. | Rule 15.9(b) authority is uncertain for this scenario; focus on defendant’s rights. | Yes; ex parte mitigation-related proceedings permitted with proper confidentiality showing. |
| Whether exclusion of victims violated the Victims' rights or due process. | Victims’ rights require presence at all proceedings where defendant present. | No fundamental rights violated since proceedings are purely procedural and defendant has no right to attend. | Victims’ attendance not required; rights must yield where defendant not present and proceedings are procedural. |
| Impact of existing authorities (Apelt) on the issue of ex parte attendance. | Apelt supports broader access to defense-related proceedings. | Apelt does not compel attendance and is superseded by Rule 15.9(b) here. | Apelt does not preclude ex parte mitigation proceedings under Rule 15.9(b). |
| How to balance victims' rights with defendant's right to a fair trial in this context. | Victims’ rights must be prioritized; attendance should be allowed. | Defense confidentiality and effective assistance require exclusion from such hearings when not contested by defendant. | Victims' rights acknowledged but do not override the defendant's limited right to be present in this procedural context. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Apelt, 176 Ariz. 349 (Ariz. 1993) (discusses ex parte requests for expert assistance in capital cases; no automatic attendance)
- Snyder v. Massachusetts, 294 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1935) (presence required when necessary to fairness; defines substantial relation to defense)
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 470 U.S. 522 (U.S. 1985) (ex parte judge-juror discussions not per se due process violation)
- Dann, 205 Ariz. 557 (Az. 2003) (right to be present does not extend to all pretrial or in-chambers conferences)
- Stincer, 482 U.S. 730 (U.S. 1987) (presence relates to defendant's opportunity to defend; not required for purely procedural hearings)
- Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (U.S. 1985) (indigent have right to basic tools for defense; context for confidentiality in mitigation)