Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4419 (2026)

Victim conference with prosecuting attorney

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. On request of the victim, the prosecuting attorney shall confer with the victim about the disposition of a criminal offense, including the victim's views about a decision not to proceed with a criminal prosecution, dismissal, plea or sentence negotiations and pretrial diversion programs.

B. On request of the victim, the prosecuting attorney shall confer with the victim before the commencement of the trial.

C. The right of the victim to confer with the prosecuting attorney does not include the authority to direct the prosecution of the case.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1995–2024 · leading case: J v. v. Hon blair/morris, 536 P.3d 1223 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

J v. v. Hon blair/morris, 536 P.3d 1223 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 10× “1(A)6; A.R.S. § 13-4419. The right to confer with the prosecution allows victims to voice their views about pretrial deferred prosecution programs but “does not include the authority to direct the prosecution of the case.”

State v. Miles, 123 P.3d 669 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “” Benton involved an uncooperative victim of a domestic violence incident who refused to release her medical records to the state to use' in its prosecution of her partner, the alleged abuser.”

Lindsay R. v. Cohen, 343 P.3d 435 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 4× “39(e)(4) (“In asserting any of the rights enumerated in this rule or provided for in any other provision of the law, the victim shall also have the right to engage and be represented by personal counsel of his or her choice.”). But such counsel cannot serve as a substitute for…”

State Ex Rel. Romley v. Dairman, 95 P.3d 548 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “§ 13-4406 (2001) (requiring notification to victim of defendant’s initial appearance); A.R.S. § 13-4419 (2001) (granting a victim the right to confer with the prosecuting attorney regarding the defendant’s case); A.”

State of Arizona v. Amiel Proto, 58 P.3d 33 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). “” Compare § 13-4419(A) (stating that prosecutor “shall confer with the victim about the disposition of a criminal offense, including the victim’s views about .”

State Ex Rel. Romley v. Superior Court, 891 P.2d 246 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995). “Furthermore, the prosecutor “has standing at the request of the victim to protect the victim from harassment, intimidation or abuse and, pursuant to that standing, may seek any appropriate protective court order.” A.”

E.H. v. . Hon. slayton/ccao/conlee, 429 P.3d 564 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “, A.R.S. §§ 13-4419(C), -4423, -4426. CONCLUSION ¶10 Based on the foregoing, we accept jurisdiction and grant relief, holding that in cases in which there is a deceased or incapacitated victim, anyone who fits within the enumerated categories of familial relations specified in A.”

State of Arizona v. Richard Allen Reed, 502 P.3d 979 (Ariz. 2022). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 13-4419(C) (“The right of the victim to confer with the prosecuting attorney does not include the authority to direct the prosecution of the case.”

State v. Mata, 550 P.3d 619 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “§ 13-4406 (requiring notification to victim of defendant’s initial appearance); A.R.S. § 13-4419 (granting a victim the right to confer with the prosecuting attorney regarding the defendant’s case); A.”

State of Arizona v. Dean Johnathan Miles (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “In concluding that the victim’s “medical records are neither protected by the Victims’ Bill of Rights[, A.R.S. §§ 13-4419(C), 13-4434,] nor the physician-patient privilege,” 182 Ariz.”

State v. Derienzo (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “’s rights identified in A.R.S. § 13-4419 expressly provide that a victim does not have the authority to direct the prosecution of a case.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4419(0) — 2 cases

State v. Miles, 123 P.3d 669 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). “” Benton involved an uncooperative victim of a domestic violence incident who refused to release her medical records to the state to use' in its prosecution of her partner, the alleged abuser.”

Lindsay R. v. Cohen, 343 P.3d 435 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). “39(e)(4) (“In asserting any of the rights enumerated in this rule or provided for in any other provision of the law, the victim shall also have the right to engage and be represented by personal counsel of his or her choice.”). But such counsel cannot serve as a substitute for…”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4419(A) — 2 cases

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4419(C) — 4 cases

J v. v. Hon blair/morris, 536 P.3d 1223 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). “1(A)6; A.R.S. § 13-4419. The right to confer with the prosecution allows victims to voice their views about pretrial deferred prosecution programs but “does not include the authority to direct the prosecution of the case.”

E.H. v. . Hon. slayton/ccao/conlee, 429 P.3d 564 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). “, A.R.S. §§ 13-4419(C), -4423, -4426. CONCLUSION ¶10 Based on the foregoing, we accept jurisdiction and grant relief, holding that in cases in which there is a deceased or incapacitated victim, anyone who fits within the enumerated categories of familial relations specified in A.”

State of Arizona v. Richard Allen Reed, 502 P.3d 979 (Ariz. 2022). “See A.R.S. § 13-4419(C) (“The right of the victim to confer with the prosecuting attorney does not include the authority to direct the prosecution of the case.”

State of Arizona v. Dean Johnathan Miles (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). “In concluding that the victim’s “medical records are neither protected by the Victims’ Bill of Rights[, A.R.S. §§ 13-4419(C), 13-4434,] nor the physician-patient privilege,” 182 Ariz.”

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.