Search 

Azcourts.gov

Arizona Judicial Branch



FAQ

Register       Login

ATTENTION: This site has been recently moved. If you had an account on our old forum site, you will have to register a new account here in order to be able to post replies.

 

NEW! The Court acted on many pending rule petitions at its August 29, 2017 Rules Agenda.  

Click on the Amendments from Recent Rules Agendas link below to go directly to the amendments and orders for each one.

Message from the Chief Justice

Current Arizona Rules 

Amendments from Recent Rule Agendas

Rule Amendments (2006 to present) 

Advisory Committee on Rules of Evidence


Pending Rules List

         Proposed Local Rules
                 Welcome!
This website allows you to electronically file and monitor court rule petitions and comments and to view existing rules of court, recent amendments of those rules, and pending rule petitions and comments. Any visitor to this site may view posts on this website, but to post a petition or comment you must register and log in. To view instructions on how to register and how to file a petition or comment, please visit our Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page. 
PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext Go to next topic
Last Post 17 Jul 2017 09:08 AM by  Kay Radwanski
R-17-0030 Rule 7.3, Rules of Criminal Procedure
 2 Replies
Sort:
Topic is locked
Author Messages
Linda Koschney
New Member
Posts:43 New Member

--
13 Feb 2017 09:26 AM
    R-17-0030 Rule 7.3, Rules of Criminal Procedure

    Colleen Clase (029360)
    MC 8240
    Arizona State University
    111 E. Taylor St.
    Phoenix, AZ 85004
    Ph: (480) 600-2661
    E-Mail: cclase@voiceforvictims.org

    Would make no-contact with the victim a mandatory condition of release, unless the court clearly finds good cause to conclude that the victim's safety would be protected without a no-contact order.

    Comments due May 22, 2017.

    ORDERED: Petition to Amend Rule 7.3 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure=ADOPTED as modified, effective January 1, 2018.
    Attachments
    Diana Cooney
    New Member
    Posts:10 New Member

    --
    24 Apr 2017 10:28 AM
    ELIZABETH ORTIZ
    EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
    ARIZONA PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS'
    ADVISORY COUNCIL (APAAC)
    1951 WEST CAMELBACK ROAD, SUITE 202
    PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85015
    602-542-7222
    602-274-4215
    Elizabeth.Ortiz@apaac.az.gov
    (BAR NO. 012838)

    R-17-0030

    COMMENT OF THE ARIZONA PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS’ ADVISORY COUNCIL In the Matter of: PETITION TO AMEND RULE 7.3 OF THE RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
    Attachments
    Kay Radwanski
    New Member
    Posts:9 New Member

    --
    17 Jul 2017 09:08 AM
    Kay Radwanski on behalf of the
    Committee on the Impact of Domestic Violence and the Courts
    Judge Wendy Million, Chair
    kradwanski@courts.az.gov
    602.452.3360

    The Committee on the Impact of Domestic Violence and the Courts (CIDVC) requests permission to file a late comment to R-17-0030: Amending Conditions of Release re: Contact with Victim. This petition did not come to CIDVC’s attention within the comment period; nevertheless, the committee has serious concerns about the implications it imposes on the economic needs and physical safety of domestic violence victims.

    Making no contact with a victim a mandatory condition of release, without a specific finding of good cause by the court, is a rule that makes sense in most criminal cases—except domestic violence cases. In domestic violence cases, the dynamics are very different. There may be good reasons for imposing a no-contact order, but there also may be very good reasons not to do so. To make an informed decision, the best practice is first to get the victim’s opinion about his or her safety and needs and then also refer to any DV risk or lethality assessment provided to the court.

    It is not rare, in domestic violence cases, to find that the victim and the defendant live together and have children in common. Many times, the offender is the family’s sole support. Often a victim may actually be safer when there is continued contact with the offender—both for financial and safety reasons. A victim who depends on the offender's financial support may see the rent check and the grocery money suddenly evaporate if a no-contact order is imposed. Even more, separation can be an extremely dangerous time for victims, and they have calculated that staying in the relationship is a safer choice for them. Domestic violence victims are usually the best judges of their own safety, and the courts should not take away their autonomy to make that decision. Also, for alleged offenders, a no-contact order may render them homeless, which can result in other damaging impacts on their lives—something to which the Arizona Supreme Court alludes in its Justice for All report.

    Because of these serious issues in domestic violence cases specifically, CIDVC is asking the Court to entertain these late comments and concerns.
    Topic is locked