Minh T. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security

14 Citing cases

  1. William M. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec.

    1 CA-JV 11-0216 (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 19, 2012)

    The Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination can be claimed in any proceeding; it operates so that "the State cannot, 'expressly or by implication,' impose 'a penalty for the exercise of the privilege.'" Minh T. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 202 Ariz. 76, 79, ¶ 13, 41 P.3d 614, 617 (App. 2001) (quoting In re Amanda W., 705 N.E.2d 724, 727 (App. 1997)); see also U.S. Const. amend. V. The Fifth Amendment did not exempt Father from participating in reunification services. Requiring Father to participate in reunification services did not necessarily mean he would be required to incriminate himself.

  2. Maretick v. Hon. Barbara Jarrett

    204 Ariz. 194 (Ariz. 2003)   Cited 26 times
    Finding denial of fair presentation to a grand jury, in part, because the State "failed to instruct the grand jury that ... [the defendant] had no obligation to present evidence, and that the jurors could draw no negative inference from his failure to do so"

    But to further sully the picture here, the prosecutor failed to instruct the grand jury that it was Maretick's right to be free from self-incrimination, that Maretick had no obligation to present evidence, and that the jurors could draw no negative inference from his failure to do so. See State v. Corrales, 138 Ariz. 583, 588 n. 3, 676 P.2d 615, 620 n. 3 (1983) (reiterating the commonly understood proposition that a jury may not draw negative inferences from a criminal witness's exercise of his Fifth Amendment right); see also Minh T. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 202 Ariz. 76, 79, ¶ 13, 41 P.3d 614, 617 (App. 2001) (stating that an individual's Fifth Amendment privilege "can be claimed in any proceeding," whether civil or criminal). While the prosecutor was not strictly required to give the instruction, there is little doubt that the combination of the witness's misleading testimony, the prosecutor's intervention during grand jury questioning, and the failure to instruct the jurors in the applicable constitutional law raises the concern that the grand jury may have based its indictment upon improper evidence and law. Although instructions to grand juries are usually given before any cases are presented, no rule prohibits giving a later instruction should justice and the needs of the case require that it be given.

  3. Veronica A. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec.

    1 CA-JV 12-0244 (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 23, 2013)

    In severance proceedings, the right against self-incrimination is "self-executing[;] that is, it does not have to be expressly raised . . . where the individual is deprived of his free choice to admit, to deny, or refuse to answer." Minh T. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 202 Ariz. 76, 79, ¶ 13, 41 P.3d 614, 617 (App. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). ¶7 Here, the court did not need to put Mother under oath to determine whether she had an excuse for not staying in contact with her lawyer.

  4. Minors. Keaundra D. v. Clark Cnty. Dep't of Family Servs. (In re Rights)

    402 P.3d 1280 (Nev. 2017)   Cited 12 times

    ; In re C.H., 652 N.W.2d 144, 150 (Iowa 2002) ; ("The State may require parents to otherwise undergo treatment, but it may not specifically require an admission of guilt as part of the treatment."); In re J.W., 415 N.W.2d 879, 883 (Minn. 1987) ("While the state may not compel therapy treatment that would require appellants to incriminate themselves, it may require the parents to otherwise undergo treatment."); see also Minh T. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ . Sec. , 202 Ariz. 76, 41 P.3d 614, 617–18 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001) ("[T]he State may require therapy and counseling for the parents.... However, there is a distinction between a treatment order that requires parents to admit criminal misconduct and one that merely orders participation in family reunification services."). Accordingly, there is a distinction between a court-ordered case plan that mandates admission of culpability for family reunification and one that requires meaningful therapy for family reunification.

  5. In re Parental Rights As To K.C.

    1 CA-JV 24-0030 (Ariz. Ct. App. Dec. 19, 2024)

    ¶10 A witness may claim a Fifth Amendment right against compulsory self-incrimination in any proceeding. See Ming T. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 202 Ariz. 76, 79 ¶ 13 (App. 2001). But the right against selfincrimination does not immunize a person from all consequences in all cases.

  6. In re Parental Rights as to W.I.

    2 CA-JV 2023-0151 (Ariz. Ct. App. Jun. 3, 2024)

    ¶11 A witness may invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in any proceeding. See Minh T. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 202 Ariz. 76, ¶ 13 (App. 2001). However, "the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them."

  7. In re D.S.

    1 CA-JV 23-0206 (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 18, 2024)

    A witness may claim a Fifth Amendment right against compulsory self-incrimination in any proceeding. See Ming T. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 202 Ariz. 76, 79 ¶ 13 (App. 2001). However, in civil litigation -- like the dependency proceedings here -- a court properly may draw an adverse inference from the invocation of that right. See, e.g., Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976) ("the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them"); Wohlstrom v. Buchanan, 180 Ariz. 389, 391 n.2 (1994) ("[I]n civil cases, fact finders are entitled to draw negative inferences against those who assert Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.")

  8. Rene T. v. Cynthia C.

    No. 1 CA-JV 19-0252 (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 11, 2020)

    We will not disturb the court's termination of parental rights unless the factual findings are clearly erroneous—that is, unless no reasonable evidence exists to support them. Minh T. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 202 Ariz. 76, 78-79 (App. 2001). This court interprets the evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to affirming the court's order.

  9. Hayley W. v. Dep't of Child Safety

    No. 1 CA-JV 18-0474 (Ariz. Ct. App. Jun. 6, 2019)

    The U.S. Constitution affords a parent in a termination proceeding the privilege of asserting his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. See U.S. Const. amend. V; Minh T. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 202 Ariz. 76, 79, ¶ 13 (App. 2001) (citing In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 47-48 (1967)). The decision to assert the privilege is not without consequence.

  10. Ian H. v. Dep't of Child Safety

    No. 1 CA-JV 17-0441 (Ariz. Ct. App. Mar. 13, 2018)

    ¶22 A witness may claim the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination in any proceeding. Minh T. v. Ariz. Dep't ofEcon. Sec., 202 Ariz. 76, 79, ¶ 13 (App. 2001). While the State cannot impose certain penalties for the exercise of the privilege, the superior court may draw a negative inference from the invocation of the Fifth Amendment in civil litigation.