State Victims' Rights Extend to Pre‑Charging Situations in Various Jurisdictions

102 CASSELL ET AL. [Vol. 104 contained in a police file in a civil proceeding, even though it appears that there was little indication that criminal charges had been filed.”*8 Similarly, the South Carolina Supreme Court, while limiting the ability of the victim to challenge the conduct of a prosecutor, concluded that the same rights under the state constitution must attach prior to the formal filing of an indictment.” Other courts have even permitted a victim to recover compensation or reparations for unindicted or acquitted conduct.**° In other words, while few state judiciaries have addressed the precise timing of state crime victims’ rights, those that have addressed the question have typically found that the rights do extend to pre-charging situations. Despite the relative dearth of state court cases, it is worth noting that most state statutes unequivocally provide for notification rights early in the criminal process.”! For example, the Illinois statute imposes a limited duty on law enforcement agencies to keep victims informed of the status of an investigation until the accused is apprehended or the agency discontinues the investigation.’ Similarly, law enforcement agencies in Iowa must keep the victim apprised of the investigation “until the alleged assailant is apprehended or the investigation is closed.””°? Michigan’s statute requires law enforcement to provide information within a mere twenty-four hours of contact between the agency and the victim.” In sum, while state law on crime victims’ rights before charging is not fully developed, what law exists tends to support the position that crime victims deserve rights before the formal filing of charges. This law fits the long-standing trend in states toward expanding protections for crime 48 See In re James B., Jr., 714 A.2d 735 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1998). 49 See Ex parte Littlefield, 540 S.E.2d 81, 85 (S.C. 2000). 250 See Kimberly J. Winbush, Annotation, Persons or Entities Entitled to Restitution as “Victim” Under State Criminal Restitution Statute, 92 A.L.R. 5TH 35, 35 (2001) (recounting cases in which unnamed victims were entitled to restitution). °51 See, e.g., MINN. STAT. ANN. § 611A.0315(a) (West 2009) (requiring a prosecutor to “make every reasonable effort to notify a victim of domestic assault ... or harassment that the prosecutor has decided to decline prosecution of the case” but providing the right to participate in proceedings to circumstances in which the offender has been charged). 252 See 725 ILL. Comp. STAT. ANN. 120/4.5 (2008). 253 Towa CODE ANN. § 915.13(1)(f) (West 2003). 254 See Micu. Comp. LAws ANN. § 780.753 (West 2007). Michigan’s conferral right is particularly ambiguous, because the notification requirement imposed upon the prosecuting attorney contains a time limitation (after arraignment), but the legislature did not include an express time limitation on the conferral right. See Micu. Comp. Laws ANN. § 780.756(3) (West 2007) (requiring the victim have the opportunity to consult prior to “any negotiation that may result in a dismissal, plea or sentence bargain, or pretrial diversion”); see also Miss. CoDE ANN. § 99-43-7(1) (2007) (imposing a requirement on law enforcement officials to notify a victim within seventy-two hours). HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014081