456 P.3d 453
Ariz.2020Background
- Reed was convicted of voyeurism; the trial court later ordered $17,949.50 in restitution (mostly the victim’s attorney fees). He appealed the restitution amount.
- After briefing but before decision, Reed died; his personal representative (his wife) sought to substitute or intervene to pursue the appeal because liens affected community property.
- The court of appeals dismissed the appeal under A.R.S. § 13-106(A) (a 2014 statute that requires dismissal of pending appeals upon a convicted defendant’s death and provides that convictions, sentences, and restitution do not abate).
- Reed challenged § 13-106(A) as an unconstitutional encroachment on the judiciary’s rulemaking and appellate authority; the State defended the statute and relied in part on the Victim’s Bill of Rights (VBR) rulemaking power.
- The Supreme Court held § 13-106(A) is a procedural rule that the legislature lacked authority to enact under separation-of-powers principles and that VBR § 2.1(D) did not authorize it; § 13-106(B) (abolishing abatement ab initio) is a substantive enactment and valid.
- The Court vacated the court of appeals’ dismissal and remanded, directing that appellate courts may decide merits in certain circumstances and permit substitution/intervention by estates or interested parties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Reed) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the legislature had authority to enact § 13-106 (separation of powers) | §13-106(A) improperly usurps the Court’s appellate and procedural rulemaking power and is unconstitutional | Legislature may regulate consequences of death and relied on VBR authority to support §13-106(A) | §13-106(A) violates separation of powers; §13-106(B) (no abatement) is a valid substantive law enacted by the legislature |
| Is §13-106(A) substantive or procedural? | §13-106(A) intrudes on court procedure and is therefore invalid | The statute reflects legislative choice about entitlement to appeals and victims’ interests | Court: §13-106(A) is procedural (it prescribes how courts must dispose of pending appeals) and thus within judicial rulemaking authority, not legislative, unless VBR authorizes it |
| Whether VBR § 2.1(D) authorized §13-106(A) | VBR does not authorize the legislature to abolish the court’s procedural control over appeals | VBR authorizes procedural laws protecting victims; Hansen supports legislative authority here | VBR §2.1(D) does not authorize §13-106(A): the statute does not define, implement, preserve, or protect rights unique and peculiar to victims and the legislature did not clearly exercise VBR authority to reach appeals |
| Proper disposition of appeals when defendant dies pending appeal | The appeal should proceed (or estate may substitute) when issues affect estate/victims | The court of appeals properly dismissed under §13-106(A) | Court adopts a middle approach: appellate courts may decide issues that are of statewide interest, remain a live controversy, or are capable of repetition; allow estate/interested-party intervention/substitution; dismiss if appeal not briefed and no substitution/intervention |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Glassel, 233 Ariz. 353 (Ariz. 2013) (discusses abatement and treatment of post-conviction matters when a defendant dies)
- State v. Griffin, 121 Ariz. 538 (Ariz. 1979) (adopting abatement ab initio doctrine where defendant dies pending direct appeal)
- State ex rel. Napolitano v. Brown, 194 Ariz. 340 (Ariz. 1999) (limits legislative VBR rulemaking authority to protecting victim-specific rights)
- State v. Hansen, 215 Ariz. 287 (Ariz. 2007) (upheld legislative restriction on stays of restitution payments under VBR analysis)
- Dove v. United States, 423 U.S. 325 (U.S. 1976) (mootness doctrine for appeals rendered moot by intervening events)
- State v. Carlin, 249 P.3d 752 (Alaska 2011) (adopts middle approach: allow substitution and permit merits review in certain death-pending-appeal cases)
- State v. Hollister, 329 P.3d 1220 (Kan. 2014) (limits merits review after defendant’s death to issues of statewide interest, live controversies, or capable of repetition)