Cited by

3(c) (special action appropriate to address whether determination was abuse of discretion); (when trial judge commits error of law, judge abuses discretion).

in the event no agreement is reached or the agreement is rejected by the court or withdrawn.” -48, ¶ 24 (App. 2009).

¶ 6, 548 ¶ 25, 801 (App. 2009) (holding that Rule 410 protected statements made by defendant to two police detectives pursuant to a free talk agreement with no prosecutor present).

See, ¶ 18 (App. 2009); Haroutunian v. Valueoptions, Inc., n.8, ¶ 18 (App. 2008).

(court considers amendments and commentary to rule as reflecting intent of drafters as “to meaning and 9 HIGUERA v. LEE Opinion of the Court application” of rule).

-50 ¶¶ 30-34 (App. 2009) (citing United States v. Mezzanatto, 3 STATE v. GILL Opinion of the Court 513 U.S. 196, 210-11 (1995), which interpreted Fed.

of Pinal, ¶ 6, ( ¶ 2, ), and “[a] primary consideration is whether the petitioner has an equally plain, speedy and adequate remedy by appeal.” Am.

(Arizona courts look to federal case law when interpreting Arizona rule based on its federal counterpart).

7 change-of-plea hearing.” ¶¶ 13-14, - 98 (App. 2009); (holding Rules 410 and 17.4(f) preclude impeaching defendant with “statements made in the expectation of a plea agreement,” including “document .

CONCLUSION ¶14 The respondent judge denied the District‟s motion for summary judgment based on a clear error of law, which constitutes an abuse of discretion, one of the grounds for granting special action relief, see Ariz. R. P. Spec.

We accept jurisdiction because the state has no equally plain, speedy, or adequate remedy by appeal, and because the issue is one of statewide importance, -87 (App. 1999).