Opinion ID: 2621170
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Statement by the Victim's Daughter

Text: ¶ 35 At sentencing, the judge considered and rejected the request of the victim's ten-year-old daughter for mercy as a mitigating circumstance. The defendant asserts the judge thereby violated the rights of a victim to be heard, as guaranteed by Article 2, Section 2.1.(A)4 of the Arizona Constitution, A.R.S. section 13-4426.A, and Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 39.b.7. The State responds that a victim's rights are satisfied when the court gives the victim a chance to speak, orally or in writing, at sentencing. See Gulbrandson, 184 Ariz. at 66, 906 P.2d at 599 (The Victims' Bill of Rights of the Arizona Constitution, however, guarantees victims of crime the right `[t]o be heard at ... sentencing.' [Citation omitted.] Here, the victim's family made statements at the sentencing hearing and in letters and statements attached to the presentence report.). ¶ 36 In State v. Trostle , we rejected the defendant's argument. There, the defendant claim[ed] that the judge should have considered requests from the victim's family that he be sentenced to life imprisonment [rather than death]. 191 Ariz. 4, 22, 951 P.2d 869, 887 (1997). We disagreed, stating such evidence is irrelevant to either the defendant's character or the circumstances of the crime and is therefore not proper mitigation. Id. (citing State v. Williams, 183 Ariz. 368, 385, 904 P.2d 437, 454 (1995)). Moreover, A.R.S. section 13-703.D expressly forbids the consideration of any recommendation made by the victim regarding the sentence to be imposed. ¶ 37 In this case, the victim's rights were satisfied by the presence of Mr. Calabrese at the sentencing hearing and the court's acceptance of documents submitted by the victim's daughter. The judge correctly refused to consider the daughter's sentencing recommendation when imposing the sentence.