"Crime victims' rights in Arizona are protected by our constitution, by statute, and by court rule." State v. Nichols, 224 Ariz. 569, 571 ¶ 7 (App. 2010). These rights are found in the Victims' Bill of Rights (VBR), Ariz. Const. art. II, § 2.1, the Victims' Rights Implementation Act (VRIA), A.R.S. §§ 13-4401 through 4443, and Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 39.

Thus, the eight victims should only have been allowed to remain in the courtroom while evidence of the crime in which they were a victim was being presented. See 224 Ariz. 569, 574, ¶ 22 (App. 2010). However, that proposition was not relevant to the holding in that case.

Moreover, the issues raised largely present pure questions of law, which are appropriate for special action review. See State v.Nichols, 224 Ariz. 569, ¶ 2, 233 P.3d 1148, 1149 (App.2010). For these reasons, we accept jurisdiction of this special action.

Additionally, "A.R.S. § 13-4437(A) and Rule 2(a)(2), Ariz. R.P. Spec. Actions, expressly authorize victims to enforce their rights under the VBR in special action proceedings." State v. Nichols, 224 Ariz. 569, ¶ 2, 233 P.3d 1148, 1149 (App. 2010). Discussion

¶ 6 Additionally, the issue raised requires us to interpret various provisions of Rule 32. Interpretation of procedural rules involves questions of law, which are appropriately reviewed by special action. See State v. Nichols, 224 Ariz. 569, ¶ 2, 233 P.3d 1148, 1149 (App. 2010). Finally, because the respondent abused his discretion, post-conviction relief is warranted.

The portion of the VBR granting victims the right to refuse depositions has been implemented by statute and is complemented by Rule 39(b) Ariz. R.Crim. P. However, we follow and apply the language of the constitutional provision to determine the scope of a victim's rights, because neither the legislature nor court rules can eliminate or reduce rights guaranteed by the VBR. State v. Lamberton, 183 Ariz. 47, 50, 899 P.2d 939, 942 (1995); State v. Nichols, 224 Ariz. 569, ¶ 8, 233 P.3d 1148, 1150 (App. 2010); State ex rel. Thomas v. Klein, 214 Ariz. 205, ¶ 11, 150 P.3d 778, 781 (App. 2007); see also A.R.S. § 13-4418 (statutes implementing VBR "shall be liberally construed to preserve and protect the rights to which victims are entitled"). A.R.S. § 13-4433(A) reads:

Additionally, the issue involves a pure question of law, further supporting our acceptance of special action jurisdiction. See State v. Nichols, 224 Ariz. 569, ¶ 2, 233 P.3d 1148, 1149 (App. 2010). As discussed below, we conclude the respondent judges abused their discretion in granting the motion to preclude the state's witness from testifying, warranting special action relief.

And our courts have repeatedly refused to narrow the definition of a crime victim. See, e.g., State v. Roscoe, 185 Ariz. 68, 70-73 (1996); State v. Nichols, 224 Ariz. 569, ¶¶ 17, 22 (App. 2010); State ex rel. Thomas, 214 Ariz. 205, ¶¶ 13-15.