Legal Opinion

State of Arizona v. Amiel Proto

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided October 10, 2002No. 2 CA-SA 2002-0067PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

ESPINOSA, Chief Judge.

¶ 1 Petitioner the State of Arizona seeks special action relief from the respondent judge’s order in the underlying sexual abuse prosecution granting real party in interest Amiel Proto’s motion to compel interviews of three witnesses the state intends to call at trial. The state contends that these witnesses are victims who have the right to refuse defense interviews under the Victims’ Bill of Rights, Ariz. Const. art. II, § 2.1(A)(5), and the equivalent statutory provision, A.R.S. § 13-4433. The issues raised are of first impression, pure questions of law, and…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Romley v. Superior CourtCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1992
  2. Hobson v. Mid-Century InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2001
  3. Rowland v. Great States InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2001
  4. State v. ToccoArizona Supreme Court · 1988
  5. Norgord v. State Ex Rel. BerningCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2001

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. State v. LeeCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2011
  2. State of Arizona v. Curtis T. BuntonCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2012
  3. State v. Damato - KushelSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2017
  4. State of Arizona v. John David Franklin, Sr. & John David Franklin, Jr.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2011
  5. State v. Damato - KushelSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2017

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API