HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014081.jpg

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.248 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.249 Other courts have even permitted a victim to recover
compensation or reparations for unindicted or acquitted conduct.250

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.251 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.252 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.”253 Michigan’s statute requires
law enforcement to provide information within a mere twenty-four hours of
contact between the agency and the victim.254

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

__________________________________________________________________
248 See In re James B., Jr., 714 A.2d 735 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1998).
249 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).
251 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 IOWA CODE ANN. § 915.13(1)(f) (West 2003).
254 See MICH. 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 MICH. 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