State v. Leonardo
226 Ariz. 593
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Gannon pled guilty to second-degree molestation of C.M., a child under fifteen, and was placed on ten-year probation.
- Gannon was later indicted for sexual abuse and molestation of a second victim, J.G., and the state sought to introduce C.M. as a witness for other-act evidence.
- The state invoked C.M.'s rights under the Victim's Bill of Rights; Gannon moved to compel a pre-trial interview of C.M.
- The trial court granted the interview, ruling C.M.'s victim rights do not last for a lifetime and that there was no final disposition.
- The State filed a special-action petition; the court granted relief, vacating the order compelling the interview, holding C.M. retains victim rights during probation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do VBR rights survive probation? | State: final disposition not reached; probation is not a sentence. | Gannon: final disposition occurred; probation negates ongoing rights. | Yes; victim retains rights during probation. |
| Meaning of 'final disposition' in §13-4401(10)? | Plain reading supports continuing rights until final termination. | Statutory text is not exclusive; probation could be excluded. | Final disposition is not limited to enumerated examples; probation can be a final disposition for VBR purposes. |
| How do related probation statutes affect a victim's rights? | Statutes like §13-4427, §13-4411, §13-4415 show ongoing rights during probation. | Not explicitly addressed; procedural focus on final disposition. | Those statutes confirm ongoing victim rights during probation. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Romley v. Hutt, 195 Ariz. 256 (App. 1999) (special-action jurisdiction for urgent rights questions)
- State v. Nichols, 233 P.3d 1148 (App. 2010) (victims enforce rights under VBR in special actions)
- Prince & Princess Enters., LLC v. State ex rel. Ariz. Dep't of Health Servs., 209 P.3d 141 (App. 2008) (illustrative use of 'including' in statute)
- State v. Sweet, 693 P.2d 921 (Ariz. 1985) (context for interrelated statutory interpretation)
- Coy v. Fields, 27 P.3d 799 (App. 2001) (probation is not a sentence; imposition suspended)
- Norgord v. State ex rel. Berning, 33 P.3d 1166 (Ct. App. 2001) (statutory interpretation framework)
- Hobson v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., 19 P.3d 1241 (App. 2001) (contextual factors in statutory interpretation)
- Cheramie, 189 P.3d 374 (Ariz. 2008) (statutory interpretation of criminal-justice provisions)