## Facts

- Robin Treen was charged with theft of James Hickey’s automobile; the prosecution alleged Treen took the car without permission.
- Treen sought a pretrial defense interview of Hickey; Hickey refused, invoking Arizona’s Victims’ Bill of Rights and implementing law.
- Treen moved to compel Hickey to submit to a defense interview or, alternatively, to allow questioning at trial about his refusal as potential impeachment showing bias or hostility.
- The superior court ordered Hickey to submit to a defense interview and indicated the defense could inquire into his reasons for refusing and issues bearing on permission to use the car.
- The State petitioned for special action relief, asserting the compelled interview would irreparably violate the victim’s rights and could not be remedied by appeal after trial.

## Issues

1. Whether a trial court may order a crime victim to submit to a pretrial defense interview despite the victim’s constitutional and statutory right to refuse.
2. Whether, and to what extent, the defendant may cross-examine the victim at trial about the victim’s refusal to grant a pretrial defense interview consistent with the Sixth Amendment and evidentiary limits.

## Decision

- The court accepted special action jurisdiction because post-trial review would be inadequate once a compelled interview occurred.
- The court held the trial court lacked authority to compel the victim to participate in a pretrial defense interview and vacated that portion of the order.
- The court recognized that, although the victim’s right to refuse pretrial defense interviews is absolute, trial questioning about the refusal is not categorically barred and may be permitted when relevant to bias, hostility, or credibility and consistent with ordinary evidentiary constraints and confrontation requirements.

## Legal Principles

- A crime victim has a constitutional right to refuse an interview, deposition, or other discovery request initiated by the defendant or defense counsel; a court may not override that choice by ordering a compelled defense interview.
- Trial-court discretion over criminal discovery must operate within constitutional and statutory limits; discovery management cannot nullify express victim protections.
- The Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause is primarily a trial right and does not create a general entitlement to pretrial discovery from witnesses.
- Cross-examination concerning a witness’s refusal to cooperate pretrial may be permissible to show bias or hostility, but the scope depends on relevance and is subject to standard evidentiary controls (including prejudice and limits on the scope of impeachment).

## Conclusion

The court barred compelled pretrial defense interviews of crime victims under Arizona’s Victims’ Bill of Rights, while leaving room for case-specific trial impeachment inquiry into a victim’s refusal when it is probative of credibility and consistent with confrontation and evidentiary rules.


State ex rel. Romley v. Hutt, 987 P.2d 218 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999)