State v. Quijada, 246 Ariz. 356

Background

Victim reported a 2012 home theft; initial police interview said missing jewelry were inexpensive "studs" (not real gems). Over time she submitted three unsworn restitution statements escalating from $5,530.75 to $45,320.18 with later higher-value jewelry claims.
Quijada pled guilty to facilitation to commit trafficking in stolen property and was placed on probation; court retained jurisdiction to set restitution later.
Several restitution hearings were scheduled; the victim appeared initially but later left due to illness and ultimately would not or could not be located to testify. The State filed the victim’s restitution statements but the victim never testified at the final restitution determination.
The superior court ordered about $40,885 in restitution (including installation and maintenance of a home security system). Quijada filed a Rule 32 post-conviction petition challenging procedure, sufficiency of evidence, and inclusion of alarm costs.
On post-conviction proceedings, the court denied a subpoena or compelling testimony, increased the restitution award, and rejected defenses; this appeal followed.

Issues

Issue	Petitioner’s Argument (Quijada)	Respondent/State Argument	Held
Whether refusing to allow cross‑examination of victim at restitution hearing violated due process	Court deprived Quijada of meaningful opportunity to contest uncorroborated, dramatically altered restitution claims	Restitution statements alone were sufficient; victim had previously appeared; hearing unnecessary	Court held due process required opportunity to question victim when veracity/accuracy of restitution is in doubt; order vacated and remanded
Whether victim can be subpoenaed to testify at restitution hearings despite Victims’ Bill of Rights	Quijada sought victim’s presence; argued subpoena appropriate to protect due process	State said victim’s written statements suffice but may subpoena; concerned about victims’ rights	Court held victims do not have categorical right to refuse to appear; parties may subpoena victim when necessary to vindicate defendant’s due process rights
Remedies when a victim refuses to comply with subpoena	Asked court to compel testimony and/or reduce award if victim absent	State acknowledged difficulty locating victim; proposed reductions based on corroboration	Court held victim may not be held in contempt for noncompliance; court must consider absence (at minimum draw adverse inference) and may fashion other remedies up to striking claim
Whether costs to install/maintain home security system are recoverable as restitution	Quijada argued alarm costs are consequential damages, not economic loss	Victim argued system and fees restored equanimity after burglary, thus flowed directly from crime	Court held installation and a reasonable period of maintenance may be restitution if costs directly flow from loss of equanimity; maintenance only for a reasonable period to restore equanimity

Key Cases Cited

State v. Fancher, 169 Ariz. 266 (App. 1991) (defendant must be allowed to contest restitution; restitution is part of sentencing)
State v. Lewus, 170 Ariz. 412 (App. 1992) (defendant must be afforded hearing or waive right; court may impose restitution in open court if amount evident)
State v. Scroggins, 168 Ariz. 8 (App. 1991) (restitution amount should be determined when parties and evidence are available)
State v. Wilkinson, 202 Ariz. 27 (2002) (restitution requires economic loss that flows directly from the offense without intervening causes)
State v. Brady, 169 Ariz. 447 (App. 1991) (moving expenses to restore equanimity after sexual assault can be restitution)
State v. Wideman, 165 Ariz. 364 (App. 1990) (mental-health counseling expenses for victim’s family directly attributable to defendant’s conduct can be restitution)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (due process requires opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and manner)
State ex rel. Dean v. City Court of Tucson, 173 Ariz. 515 (App. 1992) (victims are not categorically immune from subpoenas to appear/testify at court proceedings)
A.H. by Weiss v. Superior Court, 184 Ariz. 627 (App. 1996) (Dean applies to presentence and other court proceedings; victims lack categorical right to refuse to appear)