Analysis of State Victims' Rights Statutes and Pre‑Charging Conferral Rights

Page 29 of 31 104 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 59, *100 [#101] crimes or crimes against children." 74! In Indiana, the plain language of its statute leaves open the possibility of a conferral right before formal charges to the extent that the statute includes two separate time frames: "after a crime ... has been charged" or "before any disposition of a criminal case involving the victim." 747 To be sure, not all states have afforded victims a voice throughout the entirety of the criminal justice process. 743 In some states, the statutes are ambiguous. 74 In a handful of states, there is clear language limiting rights until after the filing of charges. For example, Louisiana constrains the conferral right to criminal matters "In which formal charges have been filed by the district attorney's office." 745 Yet, unlike the federal CVRA, this statute specifically excludes pre-charging situations. And, in any event, despite Louisiana's limitation on a particular right within the statute, the legislature in this state still often saw fit to provide the victim with notification rights, even in the absence of the formal filing of charges. 74° Very few state courts have ever considered the precise issue of whether conferral rights may attach prior to the formal filing of charges. This is likely caused by the fact that, unlike the federal statute, many state statutes fail to provide the victim with a procedural mechanism for challenging the conduct of prosecutors or law enforcement agencies. 74” However, in rare cases, state courts have implicitly recognized that a meaningful interpretation of victims' rights should include some rights prior to filing. For example, a Connecticut court concluded that a company injured by the delinquent act of a minor was entitled to information about the case [*102] contained in a police file in a civil proceeding, even though it appears that there was little indication that criminal charges had been filed. 74% Similarly, the South Carolina Supreme Court, while limiting the ability of the victim to challenge the conduct of a prosecutor, concluded that the same rights under the state constitution must attach prior to the formal filing of an indictment. 74° Other courts have even permitted a victim to recover compensation or reparations for unindicted or acquitted conduct. 7>° 238 See Office of Victim-Witness Advocacy, supra note 237, at 4 (including pre-grand jury remand, administrative dismissal, grand jury remand, grand jury dismissal, and indictment returned). 239 Td. at 26 (describing victim involvement at grand jury and arraignment stages of the proceeding). 240 See Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 258B, § 2 (LexisNexis 2004). 41 Idaho Code Ann. § 19-5306(1)(f) (2004). As in the case of most of the state statutes, the Idaho statute is not without ambiguity. A different provision within the statute makes the notification right contingent "upon the filing of a criminal complaint or juvenile petition ... ." Id. § 19-5306(2). 242 Ind. Code Ann. § 35-40-5-3(b) (West 2012); id. § 35-40-1-1 (failing to define "case"). 43 See, e.g., Md. Const. art. 47(b) ("In a case originating by indictment or information filed in a circuit court, a victim of crime shall have the right to be informed ... ."). 44 In Delaware, for example, the statute contains an additional limitation in the conferral provision that is noticeably absent from the duty imposed on law enforcement to provide information about the victim's rights to that victim. Compare De/. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 9405 (2007), and Del. Code Ann. tit. 1], § 9411 (2007) (imposing additional requirements after the Attorney General commences the prosecution), with Del. Code Ann. tit. 1], § 9410 (2007). Query whether the limitations imposed in one section should be inferred in the other under the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius. 245 La, Rev. Stat. Ann. § 1844(D)(1) (2010). 246 See id. § 1844. 47 See generally Douglas E. Beloof, The Third Wave of Crime Victims' Rights: Standing, Remedy, and Review, 2005 BYU L. Rev. 255, 300- 23 (discussing problems with remedies in victims' rights statutes). 248 See In re James B., Jr.. 714 A.2d 735 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1998). DAVID SCHOEN HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017632