A. A crime victim advocate shall not disclose as a witness or otherwise any communication made by or with the victim, including any communication made to or in the presence of others, unless the victim consents in writing to the disclosure.
B. Unless the victim consents in writing to the disclosure, a crime victim advocate shall not disclose records, notes, documents, correspondence, reports or memoranda that contain opinions, theories or other information made while advising, counseling or assisting the victim or that are based on communications made by or with the victim, including communications made to or in the presence of others.
C. The communication is not privileged if the crime victim advocate knows that the victim will give or has given perjured testimony or if the communication contains exculpatory evidence.
D. A defendant may make a motion for disclosure of privileged information. If the court finds there is reasonable cause to believe the material is exculpatory, the court shall hold a hearing in camera. Material that the court finds is exculpatory shall be disclosed to the defendant.
E. If, with the written or verbal consent of the victim, the crime victim advocate discloses to the prosecutor or a law enforcement agency any communication between the victim and the crime victim advocate or any records, notes, documents, correspondence, reports or memoranda, the prosecutor or law enforcement agent shall disclose such material to the defendant's attorney only if such information is otherwise exculpatory.
F. Notwithstanding subsections A and B, if a crime victim consents either verbally or in writing, a crime victim advocate may disclose information to other professionals and administrative support persons that the advocate works with for the purpose of assisting the advocate in providing services to the victim and to the court in furtherance of any victim's right pursuant to this chapter.
Notes of Decisions
State of Arizona v. Shawna Forde, 315 P.3d 1200 (Ariz. 2014).
· cites it 9× “Forde subpoenaed the advocate to testify at trial, but the court granted the State’s motion to quash and prohibited Forde from interviewing the advocate, reasoning that the advocate was prohibited from divulging the conversation pursuant to the crime victim advocate privilege in…”
Martin-Costa v. Kiger, 235 P.3d 1040 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 2× “Crime victims also have the right to refuse interviews and depositions and are granted certain privacy rights, including the right to appropriate safeguards to minimize contact with the defendant and members of his family, and to prevent the release of personally identifying…”
Doe v. Old Dominion Univ., 289 F. Supp. 3d 744 (E.D. Va. 2018).
“200 (West 2017) ; Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-4430 (2017); Cal.”
State Ex Rel Mitchell v. Hon. palmer/durand, 546 P.3d 101 (Ariz. 2024).
· cites it 2× “1(A)(5); see also A.R.S. §§ 13-4430, -4431, -4433, -4434. Moreover, in conjunction with these rights, this Court has emphasized that the VBR requires the state to communicate with the victim throughout a criminal proceeding to ensure that the victim’s rights are preserved.”
State of Arizona v. Richard Allen Reed, 502 P.3d 979 (Ariz. 2022).
· cites it 2× “§ 13-4420 (providing that victim has the right to be present at all criminal proceedings that defendant may attend); A.R.S. § 13-4430 (contemplating that crime victim advocates assist victims in exercising rights).”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4430(A): 1 case
State of Arizona v. Shawna Forde, 315 P.3d 1200 (Ariz. 2014).
“Forde subpoenaed the advocate to testify at trial, but the court granted the State’s motion to quash and prohibited Forde from interviewing the advocate, reasoning that the advocate was prohibited from divulging the conversation pursuant to the crime victim advocate privilege in…”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4430(D): 1 case
State of Arizona v. Shawna Forde, 315 P.3d 1200 (Ariz. 2014).
“Forde subpoenaed the advocate to testify at trial, but the court granted the State’s motion to quash and prohibited Forde from interviewing the advocate, reasoning that the advocate was prohibited from divulging the conversation pursuant to the crime victim advocate privilege in…”
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.