422 P.3d 582
Ariz. Ct. App.2018Background
- Derek Achenbach was charged with one count of child molestation and two counts of sexual abuse; Z.W. is the alleged victim.
- Z.W. moved to preclude defense counsel from referring to her as the "alleged victim," asking to be called simply the "victim."
- The superior court denied Z.W.'s motion; Z.W. sought interlocutory relief by special action in the court of appeals.
- The core dispute: whether use of the term "alleged victim" violates rights guaranteed by Arizona's Victims' Bill of Rights (constitutional and statutory) to be treated with fairness, respect, and dignity.
- The court of appeals accepted jurisdiction but evaluated whether the constitutional protections require a specific appellation and whether the superior court abused its discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Z.W.) | Defendant's Argument (Achenbach/State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Victims' Bill of Rights requires a specific appellation ("victim") in court | Victims' Bill of Rights uses the term "victim," so victims have a right to be referred to as such throughout proceedings | No specific term is mandated; labels may reflect procedural posture | Court: No specific appellation required; term choice is discretionary |
| Whether calling a complainant an "alleged victim" inherently violates right to be treated with fairness, respect, and dignity | "Alleged victim" implies doubt and undermines respect/credibility | Term accurately reflects procedural posture before conviction and avoids prejudging credibility | Court: Use of "alleged victim" does not inherently violate victim rights in cases where commission of a crime is disputed |
| Whether superior court abused its discretion by permitting "alleged victim" where crime commission is contested | Z.W.: court should prohibit "alleged" and require "victim" as matter of law | Achenbach/State: court must balance victim's dignity against defendant's right to reserve judgment on guilt/credibility | Court: No abuse of discretion; balancing appropriate and case-specific |
| Whether defendant's due-process rights can override victim's request to be called "victim" | Z.W.: victim designation need not be displaced absent direct conflict | Defense: using "victim" may prejudice presumption of innocence and defense | Court: When rights conflict, courts must balance; here defendant's interests justified allowing "alleged victim" |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549 (1993) (requires balancing victim rights against defendant's fair-trial rights)
- State ex rel. Romley v. Dairman, 208 Ariz. 484 (App. 2004) (victims' rights attach at arrest or formal charge)
- Jackson v. State, 600 A.2d 21 (Del. 1991) (permitting term "victim" only where commission of crime is not in dispute)
- Veteto v. State, 8 S.W.3d 805 (Tex. Ct. App. 2000) (trial courts should have flexibility in how to refer to complainants when commission is contested)