Cited by

¶ 23 (2011) (directing trial courts to enforce victims’ rights unless the result would deprive the defendant of a fair trial); (“[I]f, in a given case, the victim’s state constitutional rights conflict with a defendant’s federal constitutional rights to due process .

While the opportunity for cross-examination is the principal right secured by the Confrontation Clause, Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 315–16 (1974), that right is not unlimited

–31 (1997) (citing Roper, 172 Ariz. at 236); ¶ 23 (2011) (directing trial courts to enforce victims’ rights unless the result would deprive the defendant of a fair trial); –03 (1993) (“It cannot be doubted that victims of crime, and

¶21 In reviewing the reasonableness of restrictions on cross- examination, we consider “whether the defendant has been denied the opportunity of presenting to the trier of fact information which bears either on the issues in the case or on the credibility of the witness.” (citation omitted).

Comm’n, ¶ 28 (2015) (); ¶ 20 (2007) ( and A.R.S.

“In the absence of statutory definitions, we give words their ordinary meaning.” ¶ 20 (2007) (); see also A.R.S.

(holding that if the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, a court will give effect to that language and not use other methods of statutory construction); (Wash.

(citing U.S. Const. amend.

State v. Cañez, ¶ 62, (“A defendant’s fundamental right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses is ‘limited to the presentation of matters admissible under ordinary evidentiary rules, including relevance.’” ( )).

–31, –63 (1997) (“[I]f, in a given case, the victim’s state constitutional rights conflict with a defendant’s federal constitutional rights to due process and effective cross-examination, the victim’s rights must yield.

If “ ‘a statute’s language is clear and unambiguous, we must give effect to that language and need not employ other rules of statutory construction.’ ” ¶ 7 , ( , ).

¶8 If statutory “language is clear and unambiguous, we must give effect to that language and need not employ other rules of statutory construction.”

(when “a statute’s language is clear and unambiguous, we must give effect to that language and need not employ other rules of statutory construction”).

(Victim’s Bill of Rights does not permit victim to refuse to testify at trial).

2; (“[I]f, in a given case, the victim's state constitutional rights conflict with a defendant's federal constitutional rights to due process and effective cross- examination, the victim's rights mu

see also Champlin, 192 Ariz. 371, ¶ 20, 965 P.2d at 767 (purpose of VBR includes healing of ordeals and avoiding retraumatization).

“When ‘a statute’s language is clear and unambiguous, we must give effect to that language and need not employ other rules of statutory construction.’ ” ¶ 7 , ( , ).