Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 13
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4418 (2026)

Construction of chapter

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

This chapter shall be liberally construed to preserve and protect the rights to which victims are entitled.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1995–2021 · leading case: State v. Lee, 245 P.3d 919 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Lee, 245 P.3d 919 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 8× “2007); see also A.R.S. § 13-4418 (statutes implementing VBR "shall be liberally construed to preserve and protect the rights to which victims are entitled").”
Lynn v. Reinstein, 68 P.3d 412 (Ariz. 2003). · cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 13-4418. *189 Petitioner contends that a liberal construction of the Arizona Constitution and victims’ rights statutes compels the conclusion that a victim may recommend to the jury in a capital sentencing proceeding the sentence that the victim believes the jury…”
State v. Lewis, 214 P.3d 409 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “229, § 2 (alteration in Madrid)-, see also A.R.S. § 13-4418 ("This chapter shall be liberally construed to preserve and protect the rights to which victims are entitled.”
State v. Madrid, 85 P.3d 1054 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “2003), which enumerated various victims’ rights and included a statement of legislative intent emphasizing that the constitutional rights of “innocent persons [who] suffer economic loss” should be fully protected.”
Lindsay R. v. Cohen, 343 P.3d 435 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “Contrary to the petitioners’ assertions, nothing in the VBR, the VRIA, Rule 39, or Arizona ease law authorizes such a result, even under the liberal-construction standard prescribed by AR.S. § 13-4418. Further, because restitution is not a claim that belongs to victims, we…”
Beth Fay v. Hon. fox/state/jordan Hanson, 494 P.3d 1105 (Ariz. 2021). · cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 13-4418. The right to be heard in this context is clearly contemplated by § 13-4437(A).”
J.D. M.M. v. Hon. hegyi/t.D./state of Arizona, 335 P.3d 1118 (Ariz. 2014). · cites it 3× “” A.R.S. § 13-4418. The legislature also intended that rights created under that legislation generally would “continue to be enforceable .”
State v. Leonardo, 250 P.3d 1222 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “…to construe the statutes at issue "liberally ... to preserve and protect the rights to which victims are entitled." A.R.S. § 13-4418.”
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Dairman, 95 P.3d 548 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 13-4418 (2001) (emphasis added).”
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Padilla, 364 P.3d 479 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 13-4418. Requests “seeking] an order” are made to, and granted by, both appellate and trial courts.”
J.D. v. Hegyi, 320 P.3d 826 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 4× “However, in keeping with the statutory mandate to “liberally eonstrue[] [the Victims’ Rights Implementation Act] to preserve and protect the rights to which victims are entitled,” A.R.S. § 13-4418, we further hold that even after the victim turns 18, the victim’s parent cannot…”
State v. Lamberton, 899 P.2d 939 (Ariz. 1995). “Specifically, the Victim cites § 13-4418, which states that the Act “shall be liberally construed to preserve and protect the rights to which victims are entitled”; § 13-4426, which states that the Victim has the right to be heard at any sentencing proceeding; § 13-4428, which…”
Show all 23 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.