## Facts

- The defendant was charged in Maricopa County Superior Court with six counts of child molestation, classified as dangerous crimes against children.
- The alleged victims were two minor cousins (approximately four and eight years old).
- The children lived in the same household as the defendant and their legal guardians, who were family members closely associated with the defendant.
- The prosecution asserted the guardians were unable or unwilling to protect the minors’ independent interests as crime victims due to divided loyalties.
- The prosecution moved for appointment of victim representatives other than the legal guardians to exercise the minors’ rights under the Arizona Victims’ Bill of Rights and A.R.S. § 13-4403(C).
- The superior court denied the motion, concluding it lacked authority to appoint a different representative unless the defendant was a member of the victims’ “immediate family.”
- The prosecution sought special action relief in the Arizona Court of Appeals, arguing the minors’ pretrial victims’ rights would be irretrievably lost without immediate review.

## Issues

1. Whether a trial court has constitutional and statutory authority to appoint a representative other than a minor victim’s legal guardian when the guardian is conflicted, even if the defendant is not in the victim’s “immediate family.”
2. Whether A.R.S. § 13-4403(C) limits appointment of alternative representatives to cases involving an “immediate family” defendant.
3. Whether appointing independent victim representatives undermines the defendant’s presumption of innocence.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals accepted special action jurisdiction because the dispute involved pretrial victims’ rights that could not be remedied by appeal after trial.
- The court granted relief and directed the superior court to appoint independent representatives for the minor victims.
- The court held that trial courts retain equitable authority, preserved by the Arizona Victims’ Bill of Rights, to appoint an alternative representative when a guardian cannot or will not adequately represent a minor victim’s interests.
- The court rejected the superior court’s view that A.R.S. § 13-4403(C) restricts such appointments to situations where the defendant is in the victim’s immediate family.
- The court rejected the argument that appointing independent representatives violates the presumption of innocence, characterizing the appointment as a procedural device to protect alleged victims’ rights, not an adjudication of guilt.

## Legal Principles

- The Arizona Victims’ Bill of Rights preserves trial courts’ equitable authority to ensure meaningful protection of crime victims’ constitutional rights, including for minors.
- When a minor victim’s parent or legal guardian is unable or unwilling to represent the minor’s interests because of a conflict, the court may appoint an independent representative to exercise the minor’s victims’ rights.
- A.R.S. § 13-4403(C) permits exercise of a minor victim’s rights through a parent, guardian, or other lawful representative and does not abrogate the court’s broader constitutional authority to appoint a different representative when necessary.
- The statute’s reference to “immediate family” circumstances does not function as an exclusive limitation on judicial authority to appoint an alternative representative.
- Protection of victims’ participatory rights in pretrial proceedings may warrant extraordinary relief because those rights cannot be restored once proceedings occur without adequate representation.

## Conclusion

The court held that Arizona trial courts may, and when required to protect minor victims’ rights must, appoint independent victim representatives when legal guardians are conflicted or otherwise unable to protect the minors’ interests, regardless of whether the defendant is an “immediate family” member under A.R.S. § 13-4403(C).


State ex rel. Romley v. Dairman, 208 Ariz. 484, 95 P.3d 548 (Ct. App. 2004)