Knapp v. Martone, a Judge of the Superior Court of the State of Arizona
Arizona Supreme Court
823 P.2d 685 (1992)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
John Knapp was convicted of murdering his two young children. John claimed that he confessed to protect his wife, Linda Knapp (plaintiff). John was granted a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. The case was dismissed, and John was re-charged with murder. The state added an alternative allegation charging John as an accessory and, in arguments before the trial court, acknowledged that Linda was John’s coconspirator. Linda received a grant of immunity in exchange for her testimony and was never charged with a crime. John sought to depose Linda. Linda objected to being deposed, arguing that as the mother of the two murdered children, she was a victim under the Arizona Constitution’s victims’ bill of rights and had the right to refuse to be deposed. The trial court found that Linda was not a victim within the definition of the victims’ bill of rights and ordered that she submit to a deposition. The court reasoned that it could not have been the intent of the drafters of the victims’-rights amendment to include within the definition of victim someone who was or could be a suspect in the case. The court of appeals upheld the trial court’s decision. Linda filed a special action in the Arizona Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Moeller, J.)
Dissent (Feldman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
