State of Arizona v. Hon. butler/valenzuela
2 CA-SA 2021-0043
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Dec 30, 2021Background
- Valentin Valenzuela was indicted in Arizona for sexual conduct with a minor (V.B.).
- A different daughter, A.V., had reported abuse that occurred in North Dakota; Valenzuela pled guilty in North Dakota to continuous sexual abuse of A.V. and was imprisoned there.
- Arizona sought to introduce A.V.’s abuse as Rule 404(b)/(c) evidence in the Arizona case; Valenzuela sought to interview A.V. pretrial.
- A.V. invoked Arizona’s Victims’ Bill of Rights (VBR) and declined the interview; the state asked the trial court to honor that refusal but the trial judge ordered the interview, reasoning Arizona’s VBR did not apply to an out‑of‑state victim.
- The State filed a special action; the court framed the dispute as a choice‑of‑law question and considered Restatement principles and Arizona precedent regarding victims called under Rule 404.
- The court concluded Arizona’s VBR right to refuse a defense interview applies to victim‑witnesses called in Arizona under Rule 404, even when their victimization occurred in another state, and granted relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Arizona’s VBR right to refuse an interview applies to a victim called to testify in an Arizona prosecution when the victim was abused in another state | Arizona: VBR should protect any victim appearing in Arizona proceedings; refusing interviews is an absolute right relevant to Arizona’s policy and procedural rules | Valenzuela: Arizona law should not govern rights that arose in North Dakota; Arizona VBR should not reach crimes committed wholly elsewhere | Held: Arizona’s VBR applies to out‑of‑state victims called to testify under Rule 404 in Arizona proceedings; relief granted |
| Whether a Rule 404 witness (victim of a different offense) retains the VBR right to refuse a defense interview | Arizona: Prior precedent preserves the refusal right for victims even when called as 404 witnesses | Valenzuela: Rule 404 witness status and out‑of‑state situs limit VBR applicability | Held: The refusal right extends to Rule 404 witnesses; not all VBR rights apply, but the interview refusal does |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Stauffer, 203 Ariz. 551 (App. 2002) (rules limiting full application of victims’ rights to witnesses called under Rule 404)
- State v. Hamilton, 249 Ariz. 303 (App. 2020) (victim’s right to refuse an interview extends to a separate prosecution involving the same defendant)
- State v. Leonardo, 226 Ariz. 593 (App. 2011) (addressing scope of victims’ rights in evidentiary contexts)
- Champlin v. Sargeant, 192 Ariz. 371 (1998) (describing VBR purpose to protect and promote victims’ participation, protection, and healing)
- State v. Havatone, 246 Ariz. 573 (App. 2019) (choice‑of‑law approach in criminal cases may focus on rule purpose, here contrasted with Restatement analysis)
- State v. Anderson, 197 Ariz. 314 (2000) (Arizona procedural rules do not automatically apply extraterritorially)
- State v. Warner, 168 Ariz. 261 (App. 1990) (no federal constitutional right to discovery from victims/witnesses)
- Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545 (1977) (U.S. Supreme Court authority recognizing limits on defendants’ federal discovery rights)