Cited by

I. THE ORIGINAL PUBLIC MEANING OF RULE 48(l) DOES NOT SUPPORT THE MAJORITY’S CONCLUSION ¶86 “We construe rules of court using the same principles applicable to [the] interpretation of statutes.” ¶ 6 (2009).

Because that ruling is inconsistent with the plain language of our criminal rules and our supreme court’s we accept jurisdiction and grant relief.

Further, when interpreting statutes or procedural rules, we “effectuate the text if it is clear and unambiguous.” Windhurst v. Ariz. Dep’t of Corr., __ Ariz. __, ¶ 13, (quoting BSI Holdings, LLC v. Ariz. Dep’t of Transp., ); (“We construe rules of court using the same principles applicable to interpretation of statutes.”).

“The primary goal in interpreting a rule is to give effect to the intent of the rule-makers.” ¶ 6 (2009).

¶ 11 (2003); ¶ 6 (2009) (“We construe rules of court using the same principles applicable to interpretation of statutes.”).

A challenge to procedures used to establish probable cause “has no equally plain, speedy, or adequate remedy by appeal.” ¶¶ 3-4 , (probable cause for aggravating circumstances in capital prosecution); State ex rel.

P. 13.5(c); 10 P.3d 210 (2009).

¶ 5 , the trial court conducted a hearing to determine whether probable cause supported the alleged aggravating circumstances.

DISCUSSION ¶5 We review the interpretation of court rules de novo, ¶ 10, applying principles of statutory construction, ¶ 6

¶ 1 In Chronis v. Steinle, we held that “Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 13.5(c) permits a defendant in a capital murder case to request a determination of probable cause as to alleged aggravating circumstances.” *252 , 560 ¶ 1

¶ 1 This special action arises from the trial court’s refusal to conduct a hearing pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 13.5(c)

¶ 12, (noting that we amended the rules of criminal procedure, including Rule 24.1, on an “emergency interim basis” following the Ring decision); see also State Bar of Arizona’s Comments to the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure As Amended by the Supreme Court Order of October 11, 2002

See Chronis v. Steinle, 220 Ariz. 559, 8 6.