E.H. v Hon. Slayton et al

Argument summary

AI-generated — not an official transcript or court record.

1. Petitioner's counsel argued that the future lost earnings of a murdered child constitute an economic loss under Arizona statute 13-105, citing precedent from Howard and Hanson.
2. The court questioned Petitioner E.H.'s standing, noting she is the deceased victim's sister and inquiring why she claimed status as a lawful representative rather than relying on her statutory definition as a sibling victim.
3. Amicus counsel argued that awarding future lost wages for a deceased child violates constitutional due process rights because such awards are speculative and lack actual loss, referencing the doctrine of constitutional avoidance.
4. Real Parties' counsel contended that restitution requires proof of actual loss, arguing that future lost wages for a six-year-old with no work history are based on conjecture and speculation rather than direct causal factors.
5. Justices distinguished between the legal eligibility of future lost wages as restitution and the factual determination of whether such losses are too speculative or attenuated to meet the preponderance of evidence standard in this specific case.
6. Petitioner's counsel clarified that the California case Runyon was distinguishable because Arizona lacks analogous civil law provisions limiting tort recovery to pre-death damages, and emphasized that no intervening causes broke the causal chain between the murder and the loss.

Recordings

1. Recording · PT48M22S · Captions available