Morehart v. Barton
Arizona Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BALES, Justice.
¶ 1 Arizona’s Constitution entitles victims “[t]o be present at and, upon request, to be informed of all criminal proceedings where the defendant has the right to be present.” Ariz. Const, art. 2, § 2.1(A)(3). The issue here is whether this provision entitles victims to attend an ex parte hearing on the return of summonses issued as part of defense counsel’s pretrial investigation of mitigation evidence in a capital case. Because the defendant has no right to attend such a purely procedural hearing, victims also have no right to attend.
I
¶ 2 William Craig Miller is…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Wiggins v. Smith, WardenSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
- Malloy v. HoganSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Ake v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Snyder v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Kentucky v. StincerSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- R.S./s.E. v. Hon. thompson/teddy VandersArizona Supreme Court · 2021
- Putnal v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 2018
- Putnal v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 2018
- State Ex Rel. Montgomery v. Hon. chavez/robert Lee GillArizona Supreme Court · 2014
- State v. Damato - KushelSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2017
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.