AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The State filed a petition alleging the Child was delinquent based on accusations of first-degree criminal sexual penetration and two counts of second-degree criminal sexual contact of a minor, all involving a child under thirteen years of age. The State's witness list included the Victim, her parents, and several other witnesses residing in Arizona. Disputes arose regarding the scheduling of interviews with the Victim and other witnesses, leading to a motion to compel witness interviews by the Child. The district court ordered that interviews with the Victim and other witnesses be conducted in Phoenix, Arizona, to accommodate the Victim's comfort while allowing the Child to prepare for trial. Subsequent to the scheduled interviews, the State filed a notice of ineffective assistance of defense counsel and a motion for a protective order due to the conduct of the Child's counsel during the attempted interviews, leading to the cancellation of the interviews and the district court's decision to deny pretrial interviews with the Victim and to supervise interviews with other witnesses.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Child: Argued that the denial of the opportunity to interview the Victim and the late scheduling of interviews with the State's remaining witnesses violated the Child's right to prepare a defense. Contended that there was insufficient evidence for the adjudication of delinquency and claimed to have received ineffective assistance of counsel.
• State: Argued that requiring the Victim to travel for a pretrial interview and trial in a short period would be abusive. Asserted that the Child had sufficient time to prepare a defense with the information from a safe house interview with the Victim. Later, the State filed a notice of ineffective assistance of defense counsel and a motion for a protective order due to the conduct of the Child's counsel during the attempted interviews.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Child's due process right was violated by the victim advocate’s active involvement in the case.
• Whether the Child's right to prepare a defense was violated by the district court's decisions regarding witness interviews and the denial of a motion for a continuance.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence for the Child’s adjudication of delinquency.
• Whether the Child received ineffective assistance of counsel.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the Child's adjudication of delinquency and remanded to the district court for a new trial.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge Timothy L. Garcia authoring the opinion, and Judges Michael D. Bustamante and Roderick T. Kennedy concurring, found that the district court violated the Child's right to prepare a defense by denying the opportunity to conduct a pretrial interview with the Victim based on the conduct of the Child's counsel. The court concluded that retrial would not implicate double jeopardy concerns because sufficient evidence supported the Child's adjudication of delinquency. The court did not reach the remaining issues raised by the Child on appeal due to the reversal on the grounds of the right to prepare a defense. The court distinguished the case from State v. Orona, emphasizing that an absolute restriction on the Child's access to the Victim was not justified by the conduct of defense counsel and that the district court could have adopted less restrictive measures to protect the Victim while allowing the necessary interview for the Child to prepare an adequate defense.