Morehart v. Barton, 226 Ariz. 510

250 P.3d 1139 (2011) · Supreme Court of Arizona · April 29, 2011 · No. CV-10-0327-PR

Summary

The Supreme Court of Arizona held that crime victims do not have a constitutional or statutory right to attend an ex parte hearing concerning the return of summonses issued for a capital defendant's pretrial mitigation investigation when the defendant himself has no right to attend. The court concluded that such a hearing is purely procedural, while recognizing that victims may have independent participation rights if other statutory protections are implicated. The court vacated the court of appeals' opinion and remanded the case to the superior court.

Holdings

  1. Crime victims are not entitled under Arizona Constitution article 2, section 2.1(A)(3), or A.R.S. section 13-4420, to attend an ex parte hearing concerning the return of out-of-state summonses for pretrial mitigation discovery when the hearing is purely procedural and the defendant has no right to be present.
  2. Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 15.9(b) permits an ex parte proceeding related to the appointment of investigators or experts and the procurement of mitigation evidence for an indigent capital defendant when the defense makes a proper showing of a need for confidentiality.
  3. Trial courts must separately consider independent statutory victim-participation rights in an ex parte proceeding, but must enforce those rights only insofar as doing so would not deprive the defendant of a fair trial.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether crime victims have a constitutional or statutory right to attend an ex parte hearing concerning the return of out-of-state summonses issued as part of a capital defendant's pretrial mitigation investigation when the defendant has no right to be present.
  2. Whether Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 15.9(b) permits such an ex parte proceeding when the defense makes a proper showing of a need for confidentiality.
  3. Whether the victims' right to attend is triggered by the presence or participation of defense counsel even when the defendant himself has no right to attend.

Disposition

vacated

Cases Cited (15)

  • Morehart v. Barton, 225 Ariz. 269, 236 P.3d 1216 (App. 2010)(reversed)
  • State v. Apelt, 176 Ariz. 349, 365, 861 P.2d 634, 650 (1993)(limited)
  • Dawson v. Delaware, 503 U.S. 159, 167 (1992)(followed)
  • Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 77 (1985)(followed)
  • State v. Bocharski, 200 Ariz. 50, 62 ¶ 61, 22 P.3d 43, 55 (2001)(followed)
  • Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 522-23 (2003)(followed)
  • Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730, 732-33, 745 (1987)(followed)
  • Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105-06 (1934)(followed)
  • United States v. Gagnon, 470 U.S. 522, 523-27 (1985) (per curiam)(followed)
  • State v. Dann, 205 Ariz. 557, 571-75 ¶¶ 52-72, 74 P.3d 231, 245-49 (2003)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 15.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…