## Facts

- John Henry Knapp was prosecuted for the murders of his two young daughters; after conviction and death sentences, later post-conviction proceedings led to a new trial based on newly discovered scientific evidence, and the case was dismissed without prejudice.
- The State refiled first-degree murder charges and alternatively alleged an accessory theory under which Linda Knapp (the children’s mother and John’s former wife) could be characterized as the co-conspirator.
- Linda Knapp had not been charged; she previously testified under immunity in earlier proceedings.
- The State stated it did not intend to call Linda Knapp as a witness in the refiled case.
- Despite having transcripts of prior interviews and testimony, the defendant sought to depose Linda Knapp as a potential defense witness.
- Linda Knapp objected, asserting she was a “victim” under the Arizona Constitution’s Victims’ Bill of Rights and therefore could refuse a defense-requested deposition.
- The superior court compelled the deposition, reasoning that a person who was or could be a suspect was not intended to be covered as a “victim,” and the court of appeals upheld that order.
- Linda Knapp filed a special action seeking relief from the order compelling her deposition.

## Issues

1. Whether the mother of homicide victims qualifies as a “victim” under Arizona’s Victims’ Bill of Rights when the defendant and the State’s alternative theory suggest she could be implicated.
2. If she is a “victim,” whether she may refuse a deposition requested by the defendant under the constitutional right to refuse defense discovery.

## Decision

- The Arizona Supreme Court accepted special-action jurisdiction.
- The court held Linda Knapp was a “victim” within the meaning of the Arizona Victims’ Bill of Rights as the parent of the deceased direct victims.
- The court ruled that the constitutional exclusion applies to “the accused,” not to a person who might be portrayed as a suspect or alleged co-conspirator.
- The court vacated the trial court’s order compelling Linda Knapp’s deposition.

## Legal Principles

- The constitutional definition of “victim” is controlled by the text: when the direct victim is killed, enumerated family members (including parents) may exercise victims’ rights.
- The only categorical exclusion from “victim” status is “the accused” (or one the court finds is the accused); courts may not add non-textual exclusions based on suspected involvement.
- A qualifying victim has a constitutional right to refuse an interview, deposition, or other discovery request by the defendant or defense counsel.
- Claims that a defendant’s fair-trial or due-process rights require compelled discovery must be assessed separately from victim classification; where the defense already possesses substantial prior testimony and interview transcripts, compelled deposition is less likely to be justified.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that the children’s mother was constitutionally entitled to victims’ rights, including the right to refuse a defense-requested deposition, and it set aside the order compelling her deposition because mere allegations of possible involvement do not remove victim status absent a finding that she is the accused.


Knapp v. Martone, 170 Ariz. 237, 823 P.2d 685 (Ariz. 1992)