349 P.3d 1100
Ariz. Ct. App.2015Background
- This is a special-action petition from the Arizona trial court’s denial of restricting cross-examination of child witnesses by the self-represented defendant, Simcox.
- Simcox invoked the right to self-representation under Faretta and was granted advisory counsel.
- The State sought an order restricting Simcox from personally cross-examining child witnesses, supported by mothers’ letters describing potential trauma.
- The trial court denied the State’s request for lack of case-specific evidence.
- The State petitioned this Court for special-action relief and a stay; this Court denied the stay but considered the petition on the merits.
- The Arizona Court of Appeals ultimately denied relief, holding restrictions require case-specific necessity and were not shown here.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can a self-represented defendant be restricted from cross-examining child witnesses? | State argues restrictions are permissible without case-specific trauma findings. | Simcox asserts he must personally cross-examine witnesses as part of self-representation. | Restriction requires case-specific evidence; denial of restriction affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (U.S. Supreme Court 1990) (case-specific necessity to protect child witnesses from trauma; cross-examination restrictions allowed)
- Vincent, 159 Ariz. 418 (Arizona Supreme Court 1989) (need individualized findings; generalized trauma insufficient)
- Vess v. State, 157 Ariz. 236 (Arizona Court of Appeals 1988) (requires case-specific necessity for restrictions on confrontation)
- Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012 (U.S. Supreme Court 1988) (no presumptive trauma; individualized showing required)
- McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 (U.S. Supreme Court 1984) (pro se defendant may question witnesses; self-representation right)