(Cite as: 181 Ariz. 299, 890 P.2d 74)
STATE of Arizona, Appellant,
Jeremy CLINTON, Appellee.
No. 1 CA-CR 94-0378.
Court of Appeals of Arizona,
Feb. 14, 1995.
NOYES, Presiding Judge.
 The question is whether a trial court can deny restitution because the
victim was partially at fault for her own injuries. The answer is no.
The victim, Renee Ortiz ("Ortiz"), and Defendant-Appellee, Jeremy Clinton
("Appellee"), worked at a care center in Winslow for mentally handicapped
adults. Ortiz was Appellee's *300 **75 supervisor. On August 21, 1993,
Ortiz and Appellee were assigned to take three patients on a field trip to
the Show Low area. Appellee drove the care center's van. During the trip,
Ortiz and Appellee drank alcoholic beverages provided by Ortiz. On the
return to the care center, Appellee lost control of the van and rolled it,
rendering Ortiz a paraplegic and injuring others.
Appellee was indicted on four counts of aggravated assault and one count of
driving under the influence. Ortiz was not indicted. Appellee pleaded
guilty to three counts of aggravated assault, including the count naming
Ortiz as a victim. At sentencing, the trial court placed Appellee on
probation for five years and ordered a restitution hearing. Ortiz requested
restitution for $43,903.94 in medical bills; her counsel advised that other
damages would be pursued in a civil case.
The trial court ordered Appellee to pay restitution to all victims except
Ortiz. The court advised that it denied restitution to Ortiz because her
were recklessly caused, and ... the recklessness was a result of substantial
conduct ... by Renee Ortiz in causing the injuries which she suffered, and
[that conduct] included her supervision of Jeremy Clinton, and her purchase
... of all of the alcoholic beverages that were purchased during the trip.
The Court believes that justice simply does not allow restitution under
those circumstances to Renee Ortiz.
The State appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article VI, section 9
of the Arizona Constitution and Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. ("A.R.S.") section 12-
 In Arizona, a crime victim has a constitutional right to "receive
prompt restitution from the person or persons convicted of the criminal
conduct that caused the victim's loss or injury." Ariz. Const. art. II, §
2.1(A)(8) (Supp.1994) (Victims' Bill of Rights); see also A.R.S. §§ 13-4401
to -4438 (1994) and Ariz.R.Crim.P. 39 (enumerating victims' rights in
criminal cases). A crime victim retains victims' rights even if the facts
suggest that the victim might be culpable herself. See Knapp v. Martone,
170 Ariz. 237, 239, 823 P.2d 685, 687 (1992) (affording Victims' Bill of
Rights protection to unindicted suspect in case involving murder of her two
children). "The only victims excluded from the protection of the Victims'
Bill of Rights are those 'in custody for an offense' or those who are 'the
accused.' " Id. In the victims' rights context, the accused is "a person
who has been arrested for committing a criminal offense and who is held for
an initial appearance or other proceeding before trial." Id. (quoting
Victims' Rights Implementation Act, A.R.S. § 13-4401(1) (1991)).
Because Appellee was convicted of criminal conduct that caused injury to
Ortiz, who was neither in custody nor "the accused," Ortiz is entitled to
prompt restitution from Appellee.
Two statutes control the implementation of a victim's right to
restitution: A.R.S. section 13-603(C) (Supp.1994) provides, "If a person
is convicted of an offense, the court shall require the convicted person to
make restitution to the person who is the victim of the crime ... in the
full amount of the economic loss as determined by the court...."; A.R.S.
section 13- 804(B) (Supp.1994) provides, "In ordering restitution for
economic loss ... the court shall consider all losses caused by the criminal
offense or offenses for which the defendant has been convicted."