Background

• Lucas appeals convictions for two counts of sexual conduct with a minor, two counts of transferring dangerous drugs, and two counts involving a minor in drug offenses.
• Grandmother, designated as the victim’s representative under Rule 39(g) and A.R.S. § 13-4403(C), had the right to exercise the victim’s rights on his behalf during the prosecution.
• The victim turned eighteen during a prolonged delay in trial, after which Lucas sought to depose the grandmother.
• The trial court denied the deposition motion, holding that the grandmother’s status to exercise victims’ rights persisted regardless of the victim’s adulthood.
• Arizona Victims’ Bill of Rights grants guardians the right to refuse interviews on behalf of a minor; the issue is whether that right continues after the minor reaches adulthood.
• The court ultimately held that a parent or legal guardian’s right to refuse an interview remains until the final disposition of the criminal proceedings.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Lincoln v. Holt, 215 Ariz. 21, 156 P.3d 438 (App. 2007) (construing § 13-4433(H) and preserving rights; guardian may refuse interview when exercising victim rights)
• Jernigan, 221 Ariz. 17, 209 P.3d 153 (App. 2009) (statutes on same subject harmonized; avoid ad hoc exceptions to victims’ rights)
• Knapp v. Martone, 170 Ariz. 237, 823 P.2d 685 (1992) (rejects ad hoc exceptions to victims’ rights to prevent harassment of victims)
• State v. Cheramie, 218 Ariz. 447, 189 P.3d 374 (App. 2008) (statutory interpretation de novo; liberal construction to protect victims’ rights)
• Barragan-Sierra, 219 Ariz. 276, 196 P.3d 879 (App. 2008) (statutes on same subject harmonized; avoid inconsistencies within Victims’ Rights scheme)
• State v. Tschilar, 200 Ariz. 427, 27 P.3d 331 (App. 2001) (principles for interpreting Victims’ Rights statutes)