Cited by

v. Thompson, —as requiring a defendant to have identified the specific healthcare provider, date, and information likely contained in the records at the time the court rejected his request.

v. Thompson, ¶ 13 (2021).

v. Thompson (Vanders II), ¶10 (2021)).

v. Thompson, ¶ 20 (2021), we concluded that— when a defendant’s due process right to a fair trial and a victim’s state constitutional rights directly conflict—the due process right prevails.

v. Thompson (Vanders II), the trial court rejected the request for direct disclosure of the GPS data but allowed the data to be extracted for in camera review.

of Maricopa, ¶ 16 (2021) (recognizing the need for full disclosure of all facts to maintain the integrity of the judiciary despite having no general constitutional right to discovery); Indus.

v. Thompson, ¶ 33 (2021) (noting that a “defendant who offers a defense of justification should be permitted to introduce evidence of specific acts of violence .

of Maricopa, ¶ 12 (2021) (balancing competing rights, a court “may then carefully circumscribe the disclosure to the extent permissible” when conducting in-camera review of privileged records) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

v. Thompson, ¶ 36 (2021).

v. Thompson, ¶ 10 (2021).

v. Thompson, ¶ 14 (2021) (“[T]he legitimate needs of fairness may outweigh an absolute privilege.”) (citation omitted); see also Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68 (2004); Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 24 (guaranteeing the accused in criminal prosecutions the right “to meet the witnesses against him face to face”); State v. Ka

v. Thompson, ¶ 20 (2021), but establish important protections for victims in the criminal justice system.