author: JOHNSEN, Judge:

text:
    Jason Wayne LAY, Petitioner, v. The Honorable Roger A. NELSON, Judge of the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF YUMA, Respondent Judge,
    State of Arizona, Real Party in Interest.
    No. 1 CA-SA 18-0114
    Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1.
    FILED January 24, 2019
    Torok Law Office, PLLC, Yuma, By Gregory T. Torok, Counsel for Petitioner
    Yuma County Attorney's Office, Yuma, By Andrew Orozco, Counsel for Real Party in Interest
    Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix, By Linley Wilson, Counsel for Amicus Curiae Arizona Attorney General
    Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice, Phoenix, By Mikel Steinfeld, Counsel for Amicus Curiae Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice
    Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Judge Paul J. McMurdie and Judge David D. Weinzweig joined.
   JOHNSEN, Judge:

¶1 A Yuma County justice court convicted Jason Wayne Lay of two misdemeanors. After the superior court affirmed his convictions, Lay petitioned for special action relief, arguing the State had not offered evidence to prove the justice court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the charges. We accept jurisdiction of his petition but deny relief. We agree with Lay that Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") § 22-301 (2019) establishes the subject-matter jurisdiction of an Arizona justice court but conclude the evidence at his trial was sufficient to satisfy that statute.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Lay was charged with harassment under A.R.S. § 13-2921(A)(1) (2019) and threatening or intimidating under A.R.S. § 13-1202(A)(1) (2019). The harassment charge was based on text messages Lay sent a woman with whom he had been in a relationship; the threatening or intimidating charge was based on evidence that Lay threatened to kill the woman's current significant other.

¶3 At the close of the State's case, Lay moved for judgment of acquittal under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 20, arguing the State had failed to offer evidence that he committed the crimes within the precinct as required by A.R.S. § 22-301. The justice court denied the motion. It then convicted Lay and sentenced him to 60 days in jail.

¶4 Lay appealed to the superior court, which affirmed his convictions. After the superior court denied Lay's motion to reconsider, he filed this petition for special action.

JURISDICTION

¶5 We exercise our discretion to accept jurisdiction of this special action under Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, A.R.S. § 12-120.21(A)(4) (2019) and Arizona Rule of Procedure for Special Actions 1(a). Lay has no remedy by appeal, see A.R.S. § 22-375 (2019), and this case presents a question of statutory interpretation, a question of law, which is of statewide importance, see Ariz. R.P. Spec. Act. 1(a) ; State ex rel. Montgomery v. Brain , 244 Ariz. 525, 527, ¶¶ 6-7, 422 P.3d 1065, 1067 (App. 2018).

DISCUSSION

A. A.R.S. § 22-301 Establishes the Subject-Matter Jurisdiction of a Justice Court.

¶6 Section 22-301, titled "Jurisdiction of criminal actions," states in relevant part:

A. The justice courts shall have jurisdiction of the following offenses committed within their respective precincts:
1. Misdemeanors and....
2. Felonies, but only for the purpose of commencing action and conducting proceedings through preliminary examinations....
* * *
C. For the purposes of subsection A ... of this section, an offense is committed within the precinct of a justice court if conduct constituting any element of the offense or a result of such conduct occurs either:
1. Within the precinct.
2. Within [certain county parks].

¶7 Lay was convicted in the justice court for Precinct One in Yuma. He argues that court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction absent evidence that the offenses were committed "within the precinct" under § 22-301(C).

¶8 We determine subject-matter jurisdiction de novo . See State v. Flores , 218 Ariz. 407, 410, ¶ 6, 188 P.3d 706, 708-09 (App. 2008). In interpreting a statute, we first look to the measure's words, giving them their ordinary meaning unless the legislature has provided a definition. See State v. Pledger , 236 Ariz. 469, 471, ¶ 8, 341 P.3d 511, 513 (App. 2015). Additionally, when possible, "[w]e ... construe statutes to give effect to an entire statutory scheme." Backus v. State , 220 Ariz. 101, 104, ¶ 10, 203 P.3d 499, 502 (2009).

¶9 Without question, § 22-301 establishes the subject-matter jurisdiction of a justice court: "The justice courts shall have jurisdiction of the following offenses committed within their respective precincts." A.R.S. § 22-301(A). In subparts (A)(1) and (2), the statute sets out the matters (misdemeanors and felony preliminary proceedings) over which a justice court "shall have jurisdiction" when an offense is "committed within [the] respective precinct[ ]" of the court. And subpart (C) defines what it means to be "committed within" a precinct. As relevant here, "an offense is committed within the precinct of a justice court if conduct constituting any element of the offense or a result of such conduct occurs ... within the precinct."

¶10 By mandating that a justice court "shall have jurisdiction" of specific offenses when those offenses are "committed within" the precinct, the statute circumscribes the power of a justice court to exercise its jurisdiction in criminal matters. See Bruce v. State , 126 Ariz. 271, 272, 614 P.2d 813, 814 (1980) (in dictum , characterizing § 22-301 as establishing the jurisdiction of justice court); State v. Shearer , 27 Ariz. 311, 314-15, 232 P. 893 (1925) (provision in 1913 territorial code referring to "offenses ... within their respective precincts" determined justice-court jurisdiction); City Court of City of Phoenix v. State ex rel. Baumert , 115 Ariz. 351, 354, 565 P.2d 531, 534 (App. 1977) ( § 22-301"is a special statute, referring specifically to the jurisdiction of justice courts").

¶11 Although case authority interpreting § 22-301 is scant, the legislature used similar language in A.R.S. § 13-108 (2019) to describe the jurisdiction of the Arizona court system to try criminal offenses. That statute provides:

A. This state has jurisdiction over an offense that a person commits by his own conduct or the conduct of another for which such person is legally accountable if:
1. Conduct constituting any element of the offense or a result of such conduct occurs within this state.

¶12 The cases uniformly hold that § 13-108(A)(1) defines the subject-matter jurisdiction of the Arizona judicial system to try a criminal offense. See, e.g. , State v. Willoughby , 181 Ariz. 530, 536-40, 892 P.2d 1319, 1325-29 (1995) (premeditation in Arizona of homicide committed in Mexico established subject-matter jurisdiction in Arizona because premeditation is element of first-degree murder); State v. Yegan , 223 Ariz. 213, 215-16, ¶¶ 6-10, 221 P.3d 1027, 1029-30 (App. 2009) ( § 13-108 establishes subject-matter jurisdiction of superior court over a criminal offense); Flores , 218 Ariz. at 410, ¶ 9, 188 P.3d at 709-10 (same); State v. Jackson , 208 Ariz. 56, 62, ¶ 21, 90 P.3d 793, 799 (App. 2004) ("territorial jurisdiction issue addressed in Willoughby " implicated subject-matter jurisdiction of the court). Consistent with our interpretation of § 22-301, these cases hold that, as relevant here, the Arizona court system has subject-matter jurisdiction to try criminal cases only when "[c]onduct constituting any element of the offense or a result of such conduct occurs within this state." A.R.S. § 13-108(A)(1). We have no reason to conclude that the language describing the "jurisdiction" of the justice court in § 22-301 does not likewise define that court's subject-matter jurisdiction. See Bruce , 126 Ariz. at 272, 614 P.2d at 814 ; Shearer , 27 Ariz. at 314-15, 232 P. 893.

¶13 In an amicus brief submitted at this court's invitation, the Arizona Attorney General asserts that § 22-301(A) establishes the subject-matter jurisdiction of a justice court only insofar as the statute identifies categories of matters (misdemeanor prosecutions and felony preliminary proceedings) that a justice court may hear. The Attorney General argues that subpart (C) of the statute, defining when "an offense is committed within the precinct of a justice court," does not concern subject-matter jurisdiction but instead establishes the "territorial jurisdiction" of a justice court.

¶14 The Attorney General argues § 22-301 does two distinct things: (1) It establishes what offenses fall within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the justice court, and (2) separately, it establishes in which precincts those offenses may be tried. But the statute is not written that way. Subpart (A), which the Attorney General concedes defines the court's subject-matter jurisdiction, states that "justice courts shall have jurisdiction of the following offenses committed within their respective precincts ." (Emphasis added). Subpart (C), which states what it means to be "committed within the precinct," therefore is not distinct from subpart (A)'s grant of subject-matter jurisdiction but instead is a critical component of that grant. Read together, as relevant here, the statute provides that a justice court has jurisdiction over misdemeanors and felony preliminary proceedings only when the "offense[ ] [is] committed within [its] respective precinct[ ]," meaning when "conduct constituting any element of the offense or a result of such conduct occurs ... [w]ithin the precinct." A.R.S. § 22-301(A), (C)(1).

¶15 The Attorney General relies on Womack v. State , 7 Ariz. App. 455, 440 P.2d 336 (1968), in which the defendant was charged by complaint filed in justice court, then bound over to the superior court. Id . There, the State filed an information, which it later amended when the defendant agreed to plead guilty to burglary. Id. at 456, 440 P.2d 336. On appeal, the defendant argued for the first time that the justice court in which the complaint had been filed lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under § 22-301 because the offense was committed outside the precinct. 7 Ariz. App. at 455-56, 440 P.2d 336. In a two-page opinion, this court affirmed the conviction, holding without explanation that the defendant "waived defects in the preliminary proceedings" when he pled guilty. Id. at 456, 440 P.2d 336. See generally State v. White , 102 Ariz. 18, 20, 423 P.2d 716, 718 (1967) (Plea in superior court waived any error in preliminary matters: "Jurisdiction to try all felonies is conferred on the Superior Court.... If the proper preliminary proceedings, i.e., filing of a complaint with a magistrate ... were not carried out then the defendant should have moved to quash the information.").

¶16 The Attorney General argues that Womack , which did not mention jurisdiction, would not have applied waiver if the defendant's assertion of a defect in the justice court had implicated subject-matter jurisdiction. We do not draw that conclusion from the court's scant discussion of waiver in that case. The Attorney General's argument fails to acknowledge that a felony prosecution need not begin in justice court but may be undertaken by the filing of a complaint directly in superior court, where a defendant may enforce his right to a preliminary hearing. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 2.2(b) (complaint may be filed in superior court); 2.4, 3.1(a)(3). There is no suggestion in Womack that the superior court in which the information was filed (and which accepted the defendant's guilty plea) lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the offense.

¶17 Finally, the Attorney General argues that § 22-301 does not limit the subject-matter jurisdiction of the justice court because A.R.S. §§ 22-302 (2019) and -303 (2019) allow transfer of criminal offenses from one justice court precinct to another for trial. It is true that, under certain circumstances, § 22-302 allows a case to be commenced in another precinct:

If the justice of the peace of the precinct in which the crime is alleged to have been committed is absent therefrom, or for any reason is unable to act, the prosecution may be commenced in any precinct within the county designated by the justice of the peace or in the absence of the justice of the peace in any precinct designated by the presiding judge of the superior court.

A.R.S. § 22-302. And under § 22-303, once a case is properly filed in a justice court, "venue may be changed as provided by law" upon a showing of prejudice "in the precinct where the action is pending," for the convenience of the witnesses or for "other good and sufficient cause."

¶18 The Attorney General argues that these provisions must mean that the subject-matter jurisdiction of a justice court is not limited under § 22-301 to offenses committed within the precinct. To be sure, because subject-matter jurisdiction "refers to a court's statutory or constitutional power to hear and determine a particular type of case," it can neither be created by consent nor waived. State v. Maldonado , 223 Ariz. 309, 311, ¶ 14, 223 P.3d 653, 655 (2010) ; see Jasper v. Batt , 76 Ariz. 328, 332, 264 P.2d 409 (1953) ("[P]arties cannot by stipulation or otherwise create jurisdiction and thereby confer upon the court a power not given by law."). Nevertheless, §§ 22-302 and -303 do not undermine the significance of the language of § 22-301(A) that limits the subject-matter jurisdiction of a justice court to "offenses committed within [its] respective precinct."

¶19 The validity and construction of the two venue provisions are not before us. We note, however, that § 22-302 could be read as a separate grant of subject-matter jurisdiction when a justice of the peace who is empowered to hear a matter under § 22-301 is "absent" or "unable to act." See Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 32 (B)-(C) (jurisdiction of justice courts "shall be as provided by law"). In State v. Melvin , 140 Ariz. 402, 682 P.2d 407 (1984), for example, our supreme court held that, notwithstanding § 22-301, the legislature had the power under the Arizona Constitution to allow justice courts to decide motions to controvert search warrants in felony investigations. 140 Ariz. at 404-05, 682 P.2d at 409-10 ; see A.R.S. § 13-3922 (2019) ("magistrate" may rule on motions to controvert warrant). Further, § 22-303 might be construed to allow transfer of a criminal offense from one precinct with subject-matter jurisdiction under § 22-301 to another precinct with subject-matter jurisdiction under § 22-301. Nothing in the two statutes, however, requires or allows us to disregard the plain language in § 22-301(A) that limits justice courts' jurisdiction in criminal matters to "offenses committed within their respective precincts." See Bruce , 126 Ariz. at 272, 614 P.2d at 814 ; Shearer , 27 Ariz. at 314-15, 232 P. 893 ; see also Willoughby , 181 Ariz. at 536-40, 892 P.2d at 1325-29 ; Yegan , 223 Ariz. at 215-16, ¶¶ 6-10, 221 P.3d at 1029-30 ; Flores , 218 Ariz. at 410, ¶ 9, 188 P.3d at 709-10.

B. A "Result" of the Offenses Occurred in the Justice Court's Precinct.

¶20 To determine whether the justice court had subject-matter jurisdiction to try Lay on the two misdemeanor charges, we turn to whether "conduct constituting any element of the offense[s] or a result of such conduct occur[ed]" within Precinct One of Yuma County. See A.R.S. § 22-301(C). Here, as in all criminal prosecutions, the State had the burden of proving jurisdictional facts beyond a reasonable doubt. See Willoughby , 181 Ariz. at 538, 892 P.2d at 1327.

¶21 The State charged Lay with harassment under § 13-2921(A)(1), which provides that:

A person commits harassment if, with intent to harass or with knowledge that the person is harassing another person, the person:
1. Anonymously or otherwise contacts, communicates or causes a communication with another person by verbal, electronic, mechanical, telegraphic, telephonic or written means in a manner that harasses.

¶22 The female victim testified that after she asked Lay to stop contacting her, someone she believed to be Lay sent her dozens of text messages that upset her. Lay argues, and we agree, that, notwithstanding the victim's testimony, there was no evidence that "conduct causing any element of the offense" occurred within Precinct One. Although the female victim did not work within the precinct, the court heard evidence that she lived with the male victim within the precinct. That being said, the State offered no evidence of the location from which Lay sent the harassing text messages, nor did the court hear evidence of the location of the female victim when she received them.

¶23 The same was true of the evidence offered to prove Lay threatened or intimidated the male victim. Under § 13-1202(A)(1), "[a] person commits threatening or intimidating if the person threatens or intimidates by word or conduct ... [t]o cause physical injury to another person or serious damage to the property of another." The female victim testified Lay called her on her cell phone while she was at work and told her he would kill the male victim. The male victim testified he was present and overheard the threat when it was made. As noted, the victims were not within Precinct One when they heard Lay's telephone threat, and the State offered no evidence of where Lay was when he made the call.

¶24 Without evidence that "conduct constituting any element" of either offense occurred in the precinct, jurisdiction turned on whether "a result of such conduct" occurred in the precinct. See A.R.S. § 22-301(C). In interpreting the same language in § 13-108, we have held that the "result" of criminal conduct occurs within a jurisdiction when the crime has and is intended to have a "substantial" or "direct" effect within the jurisdiction. See Flores , 218 Ariz. at 414, ¶¶ 17, 20, 188 P.3d at 713 ; State v. Miller , 157 Ariz. 129, 130-34, 755 P.2d 434, 435-39 (1988).

¶25 In Flores , we held Arizona had subject-matter jurisdiction over the prosecution of a man charged with solicitation to commit human smuggling because the purpose and the result of the crime (which was committed in Mexico) was the defendant's own transport into Arizona. 218 Ariz. at 416, ¶ 25, 188 P.3d at 715. We cautioned in that case, however, that jurisdiction is not created wherever a "result" or "detrimental effect" occurs; instead, "the adverse consequence must be part of the design of the actor." 218 Ariz. at 415, ¶ 20, 188 P.3d at 713-14. In Miller , the defendant became acquainted with a man and a woman in Colorado who had stolen 11 diamond rings from a Flagstaff store. 157 Ariz. at 130, 755 P.2d at 435. The defendant agreed to help the pair dispose of the rings and they gave him two of them in return. Id . After the defendant was arrested, extradited to Arizona and charged with theft, he moved to dismiss the charge for lack of jurisdiction. Id. We affirmed the superior court's order granting the motion. Id. Construing § 13-108, we reasoned that the defendant's acts "had, at most, only an insubstantial and indirect effect in Arizona" because the harm to the victim-the deprivation of the rings-"had already occurred before" the defendant became involved. Id. at 133, 755 P.2d at 438.

¶26 Most recently, we addressed criminal subject-matter jurisdiction in Yegan , where the defendant was a California man who was convicted of luring a minor for sexual exploitation after he developed an online relationship with someone he thought was a 14-year-old Phoenix girl. 223 Ariz. at 214-15, ¶¶ 1-4, 221 P.3d at 1028-29. We held the Arizona court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the prosecution; even though the defendant's crimes "were technically completed while he was still in California, the intended results and consequences of his Internet communications were to participate in prohibited sexual activities in Arizona with a minor." Id. at 217, ¶ 13, 221 P.3d at 1031.

¶27 Applying those principles here, we conclude the justice court had subject-matter jurisdiction under § 22-301 to try both charges because the results of the two crimes occurred at the victims' residence within the precinct.

¶28 Under § 13-2921(E), harassment occurs when the defendant's "conduct ... seriously alarms, annoys or harasses the person." In multiple texts to the female victim, Lay told her he would kill her current partner and threatened to circulate nude photos of her and to go to her work or home and destroy her belongings. The State offered evidence Lay not only knew where the female victim was living, but that the purpose of his texts was, at least in part, to coerce her to move out of the home she shared with her partner and return to Lay. This evidence plainly showed Lay intended to and did alarm or annoy the victim at her home, which was located within the precinct. See Yegan , 223 Ariz. at 217, ¶ 13, 221 P.3d at 1031 ("intended results and consequences" of criminal acts were to cause harm within the jurisdiction).

¶29 As for Lay's other conviction, after they heard the threat, the victims called police, who told them to go home and call again from there. The crime of threatening or intimidating does not require proof of the mental state of the intended victim. See In re Ryan A. , 202 Ariz. 19, 23, ¶¶ 13-14, 39 P.3d 543, 547 (App. 2002). Nevertheless, a threat made in violation of § 13-1202 naturally may cause the victim fear or apprehension of physical harm or damage to property to be inflicted at some future time. The male victim heard Lay's threat, took it seriously, and immediately drove home at the direction of law enforcement. The justice court reasonably could have inferred his apprehension did not disappear before he reached home, where he met with police to describe the alarming incident in greater detail.

¶30 Lay and amicus Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice argue the court's subject-matter jurisdiction over the two offenses should not extend to any precinct into which a victim might travel while he or she feels annoyed or alarmed by a harassing text or a threatening call. Notwithstanding their contention that a victim cannot create jurisdiction by moving from one precinct to another, here, the two victims' retreat to their home was an entirely logical and expected result of Lay's crimes. Given that the victims naturally returned to their home in Precinct One after receiving the texts and hearing the threat, we need not determine the outer boundaries of a justice court's jurisdiction under § 22-301.

¶31 Accordingly, we conclude Lay's criminal offenses caused intended results and "substantial effects" within the justice court's precinct. Just as in Yegan and Flores , where the defendants committed crimes intending to cause effects in Arizona, Lay's criminal acts were designed to cause fear, anxiety and other emotional upset in the victims. Given the nature of the harassing texts and the death threat, the victims felt those harms most particularly in their home, which was located within the precinct in which the charges were tried.

CONCLUSION

¶32 For the above reasons, we accept jurisdiction of the petition for special action but deny relief because the justice court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the charged offenses.

      Absent material revision after the date of an alleged offense, we cite the current version of a statute or rule.

      Under Article 6, section 14(4) of the Arizona Constitution, "the superior court" has original jurisdiction of "[c]riminal cases amounting to felony, and cases of misdemeanor not otherwise provided for by law." Although A.R.S. § 22-301 defines the subject-matter jurisdiction of a particular justice court precinct, the law of subject-matter jurisdiction treats all of Arizona's superior courts as a single entity. That is because "[t]he superior courts ... shall constitute a single court, composed of all the duly elected or appointed judges in each of the counties of the state." Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 13 ; see State v. Flemming , 184 Ariz. 110, 114, 907 P.2d 496, 500 (1995) (in general, "there is only one superior court in the state of Arizona"); Marvin Johnson, P.C. v. Myers , 184 Ariz. 98, 100, 907 P.2d 67, 69 (1995) ("The single trial court of general jurisdiction is the superior court."). Once Arizona has acquired subject-matter jurisdiction over a felony offense pursuant to § 13-108, venue provisions determine where the offense will be tried. See A.R.S. § 13-109 (2019); Massengill v. Superior Court , 3 Ariz. App. 588, 591, 416 P.2d 1009 (1966).

      Section 13-108 has other provisions that apply, inter alia , to attempt, solicitation or conspiracy offenses, or when "[t]he offense is a violation of a statute of this state that prohibits conduct outside the state." A.R.S. § 13-108(A).


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: McMURDIE, Judge:

license: Public Domain

text:
    SANDRA R., Sergio C., Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY, M.R., F.M., J.M., Appellees.
    No. 1 CA-JV 18-0147
    Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1.
    FILED January 29, 2019
    John L. Popilek, P.C., Scottsdale, By John L. Popilek, Counsel for Appellant Sandra R.
    Law Office of H. Clark Jones LLC, Mesa, By H. Clark Jones, Counsel for Appellant Sergio C.
    Arizona Attorney General's Office, Tucson, By Autumn L. Spritzer, Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety
    Judge Paul J. McMurdie delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Jennifer B. Campbell and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.
   McMURDIE, Judge:

¶1 Sandra R. ("Mother") appeals the termination of her parental rights to her three children: M.R., born in 2008; F.M., born in 2015; and J.M., born in 2017. Sergio C. ("Father") appeals the termination of his rights to their two children in common, F.M. and J.M. We affirm the termination orders and hold: (1) the court committed harmless error by allowing the Department of Child Safety ("DCS") to introduce statements from scientific articles without meeting the foundation requirements of Arizona Rule of Evidence 803(18) ; (2) sufficient evidence supports the abuse finding related to the shaken-baby injury (nonaccidental trauma) even though the evidence did not prove which parent abused the child; and (3) under Alma S. v. DCS , 245 Ariz. 146, 425 P.3d 1089 (2018), the "constitutional nexus" requirement established by Linda V. v. ADES , 211 Ariz. 76, 117 P.3d 795 (App. 2005), is considered under the totality of the circumstances in determining whether termination is in the best interests of the child.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 In 2013, Mother and her five-year-old daughter M.R. began living with Father. Mother subsequently gave birth to F.M. and J.M. In April 2017, six-week-old J.M. slept most of the day and vomited "a lot" that evening. Mother noticed that J.M.'s arms began shaking at various times. Assuming it was a stomach issue, Father went to the store to buy tea for J.M. Meanwhile, J.M.'s condition worsened. J.M. turned pale, started moaning, could not fully open her eyes, and her arms became stiff. After Father returned from the store, Mother and Father took J.M. to an urgent-care center where they waited more than 40 minutes for the doctor to evaluate her. Upon examination, the doctor told Mother and Father to immediately take J.M. to Phoenix Children's Hospital ("PCH").

¶3 At PCH, a scan revealed that J.M. had a large subdural hemorrhage on the left side of her brain and a smaller subdural hemorrhage on the right. She also had damage to her optic nerve and severe retinal hemorrhaging in both eyes. The hemorrhaging caused her brain to shift out of position and compress her brainstem. Because J.M.'s life was in danger, doctors had to perform emergency neurosurgery. After surgery, Dr. Melissa Jones, a pediatrician with a specialty in child abuse pediatrics, evaluated J.M. After ruling out possible medical causes, Dr. Jones determined the injuries resulted from abusive head trauma and Mother and Father provided no alternative explanation for the cause of J.M.'s injuries. PCH reported the injuries, and DCS took custody of all three children and filed dependency petitions. The juvenile court later established the case plan as severance and adoption.

¶4 In July 2017, DCS petitioned to terminate Mother's rights to J.M., F.M., and M.R., and Father's rights to J.M. and F.M., under the abuse ground. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. ("A.R.S.") § 8-533(B). Over seven months, DCS offered Mother and Father services, including hair-follicle testing to rule out drug abuse, psychological evaluations, individual counseling, and a parent aide during visits with the children. Although Mother and Father participated in services, in discussions with counselors, they continued to minimize J.M.'s severe injuries and provided no further explanation for how the injury occurred.

¶5 The juvenile court held a three-day termination hearing. Dr. Jones testified for DCS, opining that J.M.'s injuries resulted from nonaccidental trauma. Dr. Ruth Bristol, J.M.'s pediatric neurosurgeon, testified on the manner and extent of J.M.'s injuries. Mother and Father's expert, Dr. Joseph Scheller, a pediatric neurologist with specialties in pediatric neurology and neuroimaging, opined that J.M.'s injuries most likely resulted from an unusual complication of a birth injury. The court took the matter under advisement and later issued an order terminating Mother's rights to J.M., F.M., and M.R., and Father's rights to J.M. and F.M. Mother and Father timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9 of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. §§ 8-235(A), 12-120.21(A)(1), and -2101(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶6 To terminate a parent-child relationship, the court must find at least one statutory ground for termination under A.R.S. § 8-533(B) by clear and convincing evidence. Kent K. v. Bobby M. , 210 Ariz. 279, 284, ¶ 22, 110 P.3d 1013, 1018 (2005). The court must also find termination is in the child's best interests by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. We review the court's termination determination for an abuse of discretion and will affirm unless no reasonable evidence supports the court's findings. Mary Lou C. v. ADES , 207 Ariz. 43, 47, ¶ 8, 83 P.3d 43, 47 (App. 2004). The juvenile court "is in the best position to weigh the evidence, observe the parties, judge the credibility of witnesses, and resolve disputed facts." ADES v. Oscar O. , 209 Ariz. 332, 334, ¶ 4, 100 P.3d 943, 945 (App. 2004).

A. The Court Committed Harmless Error by Allowing DCS to Cross-Examine Mother and Father's Expert Witness with Publications in His Field Without Laying Proper Foundation.

¶7 Mother and Father assert that DCS failed to lay proper foundation for the scientific articles it used to impeach Mother's and Father's expert witness, Dr. Scheller. Although we agree the court erred by not requiring DCS to lay the proper foundation for the publications, we conclude the error was harmless. See Monica C. v. ADES , 211 Ariz. 89, 94, ¶ 22, 118 P.3d 37, 42 (App. 2005) (harmless error applies in juvenile proceedings).

¶8 This court will affirm the juvenile court's evidentiary rulings "absent a clear abuse of its discretion and resulting prejudice." Lashonda M. v. ADES , 210 Ariz. 77, 82-83, ¶ 19, 107 P.3d 923, 928-29 (App. 2005). Abuse of discretion occurs when a court's decision is "manifestly unreasonable" or based on "untenable" grounds. Id. (quoting Quigley v. City Court of Tucson , 132 Ariz. 35, 37, 643 P.2d 738, 740 (App. 1982) ).

¶9 Arizona Rule of Evidence 803(18) governs the admission of hearsay statements from learned treatises, periodicals, or pamphlets. Rule 803(18) provides that statements from such publications may be read into evidence, but not received as an exhibit, if:

(A) the statement is called to the attention of an expert witness on cross-examination or relied on by the expert on direct examination; and
(B) the publication is established as a reliable authority by the expert's admission or testimony, by another expert's testimony, or by judicial notice.

"The learned treatise exception to the hearsay rule stems from [the] ... independent guarantees of trustworthiness of such works." Rossell v. Volkswagen of Am. , 147 Ariz. 160, 173, 709 P.2d 517, 530 (1985). By requiring the proponent to elicit an expert's recognition of the publication's reliability, Rule 803(18)(B) provides the proper method to verify the statement's trustworthiness. See State v. West , 238 Ariz. 482, 500-501, ¶¶ 68, 70, 362 P.3d 1049, 1067-1068 (App. 2015).

¶10 Mother and Father argue DCS failed to lay the proper foundation before recounting statements from the scientific articles in the following two instances:

[DCS Counsel:] Okay. In Jones' study, he concluded, again, that these are rare, but cannot be diagnosed unless nonaccidental head injury had been questioned thoroughly, do you agree with that statement?
[Dr. Scheller:] Yes and no. It's sort of-it's a very complicated statement that he said. And I'm happy to explain why or I'll just say-
* * *
[DCS Counsel:] And you're familiar with the Feldman study that was published in September of 2001?
[Dr. Scheller:] Yes, 2001. Because he's published a real lot of studies.
* * *
[DCS Counsel:] And [Feldman's] study found chronic or mixed chronic and acute subdural hematoma were found only in abused children in his study, that's what he found, correct?
[Dr. Scheller:] Yes.

Mother timely objected to each line of questioning, citing DCS's failure to establish that the publications containing the articles were reliable as required by Rule 803(18)(B). The court overruled each objection and found Dr. Scheller's knowledge of the studies provided adequate foundation to question him about the contents.

¶11 DCS asserts it was not obligated to follow Rule 803(18) 's foundation requirements during the cross-examination because it "did not seek to admit the articles into evidence." We reject this argument. By asking Dr. Scheller to confirm its paraphrased descriptions of the articles' findings, DCS put the truth of the findings themselves at issue. See Ariz. R. Evid. 801(c) (hearsay means an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement); Ariz. R. Evid. 802 (hearsay generally inadmissible); West , 238 Ariz. at 501, ¶ 71, 362 P.3d at 1068 (superior court properly sustained objection to prosecutor's reference to the findings of a "great deal of literature" in scientific journals); Sharman v. Skaggs Cos. , 124 Ariz. 165, 168-69, 602 P.2d 833, 836-37 (App. 1979) (discussion of a report's findings on cross-examination introduced hearsay statements from report). Thus, before recounting the articles' findings, DCS was required to first lay proper foundation concerning the reliability of the publications in which those articles appeared, or the reliability of the studies within the articles. DCS did not lay the required foundation, and the court erred by overruling Mother's and Father's objections to DCS's improper cross-examination.

¶12 Although the court should have required DCS to establish the publications' reliability before receiving evidence of the articles' findings, we nonetheless conclude that the error was harmless. Dr. Scheller conceded his familiarity with each authority, was able to answer DCS's follow-up questions, and at times challenged DCS's attempts to restrict his explanations of the articles' findings. While Mother and Father take issue with whether the referenced publications were current and credible, their respective counsel did not develop these arguments on redirect examination despite the opportunity to do so. And although the juvenile court ultimately rejected Dr. Scheller's opinion, it based that decision on the testimony of J.M.'s treating physicians and Dr. Scheller's concessions surrounding the cause of J.M.'s injuries, not whether Dr. Scheller's opinion was contrary to the weight of published authority.

B. Sufficient Evidence Supports the Court's Order Terminating Mother's and Father's Rights Based on Abuse or Failure to Protect from Abuse.

¶13 Mother and Father argue insufficient evidence supports the court's termination order under the abuse ground. A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(2) provides:

B. Evidence sufficient to justify the termination of the parent-child relationship shall include ...
* * *
2. [t]hat the parent has neglected or wilfully abused a child. This abuse includes serious physical or emotional injury or situations in which the parent knew or reasonably should have known that a person was abusing or neglecting a child.

If a parent abuses or neglects their child, the court may terminate that parent's rights to their other children on this basis, even if there is no evidence that the other children were abused. Linda V. , 211 Ariz. at 79, ¶ 14, 117 P.3d at 798.

¶14 Reasonable evidence supports the court's finding that J.M.'s injuries were caused by abuse. While in Mother and Father's exclusive care, J.M. suffered a large subdural hemorrhage on the left side of her brain and a smaller subdural hemorrhage on the right. She also had significant midline shift and herniation of her brain, meaning there was so much pressure in the brain that it started to shift out of its normal position. J.M. required emergency neurosurgery to relieve the pressure because it had become so great that her skull could no longer contain the brain and its contents without threatening her life. She also had diffused retinal hemorrhages (or bleeding) in all quadrants of the retina and all layers of the retina. Her head injuries negatively affected a multitude of systems in her body. Post-trauma, doctors diagnosed her with cerebral palsy because she had significant motor impairment. She also suffers from regular epileptic seizures and is blind. She now requires occupational therapy, feeding therapy, and 24-hour monitoring. Dr. Bristol testified that J.M. will likely require long-term, full-time care for the foreseeable future.

¶15 At the termination hearing, Dr. Jones opined that J.M.'s injuries occurred within a few days before her hospital admission and resulted from nonaccidental trauma. After reviewing the family's medical history and J.M.'s birth records, Dr. Jones found no alternative medical explanation for her injuries. Similarly, Dr. Bristol testified that J.M.'s injuries were most likely caused by recent trauma. Dr. Jones added that J.M.'s lack of external injuries did not rule out abuse.

¶16 Dr. Scheller disagreed and testified that J.M.'s injuries resulted from a subdural hematoma at birth that began spontaneously re-bleeding some weeks later, which in turn caused her retinal hemorrhages. Dr. Scheller conceded that this occurrence would be "an unusual complication" and that no other non-traumatic medical condition could have caused J.M.'s injuries.

¶17 Dr. Jones and Dr. Bristol opined on Dr. Scheller's conclusion, testifying that such an occurrence under the circumstances present with J.M. would be "very, very rare." Dr. Jones testified that "children [who] have spontaneous re-bleeding [also] have some other complicating factor with their brain." Dr. Bristol testified that in her experience as a pediatric neurosurgeon she had "not seen a spontaneous re-bleed to that degree." Dr. Jones opined that J.M.'s presentation and injuries did not correspond to Dr. Scheller's theory, particularly the diffuse nature of J.M.'s retinal hemorrhages, which was consistent with "massive trauma with acceleration and deceleration." Regarding J.M.'s eye injuries, Dr. Jones stated that:

[T]here had to be [a] significant force that led to that pattern of retinal hemorrhages. You can get retinal hemorrhages from many different causes, but the only times we see [J.M.'s] pattern of retinal hemorrhages in the pediatric population is from abusive head trauma, severe motor vehicle collisions or there's some case reports of children who have fallen out of two or three story windows onto concrete.

Dr. Jones specifically distinguished Dr. Scheller's theory, testifying that "when the pressure is high in the brain, you can get retinal hemorrhages," but they are typically "in the ... most recessed part of the retina ... surrounding the optic nerve," which was "not the same pattern that [J.M.] had."

¶18 Throughout the investigation, dependency, and termination hearings, Mother and Father maintained that J.M. had suffered no accidents or injuries that would explain her injuries. At J.M.'s first health checkup (a few weeks before her traumatic brain injury ), the doctor examining J.M. noted no concerns. Likewise, Mother and Father maintained that J.M. only began showing symptoms the evening they took her to the hospital. In sum, reasonable evidence supports the juvenile court's determination that J.M.'s injuries were the result of nonaccidental trauma.

¶19 Based on its conclusion that J.M.'s injuries were the result of nonaccidental trauma, the court also found that Mother or Father, or both, intentionally abused J.M. or knew or reasonably should have known that the other parent abused her, "as she was in their sole care when she suffered life-threatening injuries." The court also found that, despite the "timing, extent, mechanics and presentation of [J.M.'s] injuries," Mother and Father continued to deny that abusive conduct occurred, presented a "united front," and remained committed to each other and their relationship. And because neither parent had "shown a willingness to leave the other to protect the children from the other parent," the court concluded that "both parents have demonstrated their lack of protective capacities for all of the children, not only [J.M.]."

¶20 Mother and Father have consistently maintained that they were J.M.'s only caregivers since her birth. Mother and Father continuously denied J.M. was abused, even after they were confronted with PCH's medical assessments of J.M.'s injuries. Despite strong evidence that at least one of them caused J.M.'s injuries, Mother and Father made no attempt to distance themselves from one another. To the contrary, in the months following the incident with J.M., Mother and Father deepened their commitment to one another by marrying. Given this record, reasonable evidence supports the juvenile court's determination that: (1) one or both parents willfully abused J.M. by causing J.M.'s physical injuries; and (2) one or both parents failed to protect J.M. after they knew or reasonably should have known J.M. had been abused. See Maricopa County Juv. Action Nos. JS-4118/JD-529 , 134 Ariz. 407, 408-09, 656 P.2d 1268, 1269-70 (App. 1982) (where mother refused to obtain a divorce or otherwise separate herself from husband who had committed abuse, her "knowing failure" to protect her children from abuse by her husband justified termination of her parental rights); see also Mario G. v. ADES , 227 Ariz. 282, 287-88, ¶¶ 19-25, 257 P.3d 1162, 1167-68 (App. 2011) (finding a father's failure to protect one child from abuse justified termination of his rights to another child); Linda V. , 211 Ariz. at 79, ¶ 14, 117 P.3d at 798 (parents "who permit another person to abuse or neglect their children" may have their parental rights terminated). Once DCS established Mother and Father abused or failed to take steps to protect J.M. after the abuse occurred, the statutory grounds to terminate Mother's and Father's rights to the other children were also met. A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(2) ; Linda V. , 211 Ariz. at 79, ¶ 14, 117 P.3d at 798. Accordingly, reasonable evidence supports the court's finding that termination of Mother's rights to J.M., F.M., and M.R., and Father's rights to J.M. and F.M., was justified under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(2).

C. Alma S. v. DCS Requires Courts to Consider the Connection Between the Prior Abuse of One Child and the Risk of Future Abuse to the Other Children During the Best-Interests Inquiry.

¶21 Mother and Father argue insufficient evidence supports the juvenile court's finding that there was a "nexus" between the abuse of J.M. and the risk of abuse to F.M. and M.R. In the past, this court has expressly held that termination of parental rights to a child who has not been the direct target of abuse requires the party seeking termination of rights to show, at the statutory-grounds stage, "a constitutional nexus between the prior abuse and the risk of future abuse to the child at issue." Seth M. v. Arienne M. , 245 Ariz. 245, 248, ¶ 11, 426 P.3d 1224, 1227 (App. 2018) (quoting Tina T. v. DCS , 236 Ariz. 295, 299, ¶ 17, 339 P.3d 1040, 1044 (App. 2014) ); Mario G. , 227 Ariz. at 285, ¶ 16, 257 P.3d at 1165. This court recently revisited the constitutional nexus requirement, noting that it "first appeared in a footnote in the Linda V. opinion, although that opinion does not identify any legal source for such a requirement and it is not present in the statute itself." Seth M. , 245 Ariz. at 248, ¶ 11, 426 P.3d at 1227 (citing Linda V. , 211 Ariz. at 80, ¶ 17, n.3, 117 P.3d at 799, n.3 ).

¶22 The uncertainty expressed in Seth M. towards requiring this showing at the statutory-grounds stage was realized when our supreme court issued its decision in Alma S. v. DCS . In Alma S. , the supreme court held "the substantive grounds for termination listed in § 8-533(B) [are synonymous] with parental unfitness," and once the juvenile court finds a parent to be unfit, the best-interests analysis is triggered. 245 Ariz. at 150-51, ¶¶ 9, 12, 425 P.3d at 1093-94. Alma S. thus makes clear that, at the statutory-grounds stage, the juvenile court should only determine whether the party seeking termination has met its burden of proving a parent unfit under one of the grounds for termination. See Alma S. , 245 Ariz. at 154, ¶ 32-33, 425 P.3d at 1097 (Bolick, J., concurring in the result) ("However, the Court today holds that all that must be proven by clear and convincing evidence is that the parent engaged in one of the statutory grounds for termination, which by itself 'constitute[s] a finding of parental fitness.' " (alteration in original) (quoting id. at 150, ¶ 11, 425 P.3d at 1093 ). Considerations outside the scope of A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(2) -such as whether a connection exists between a parent's abuse of one of their children and the risk of abuse to their other children-are left to the best-interests inquiry. This conclusion not only comports with Alma S. 's discussion of the two-step termination inquiry, but also Linda V. 's original application of a "nexus" requirement. See Linda V. , 211 Ariz. at 80, ¶ 17, n.3, 117 P.3d at 799, n.3 (addressing the need to demonstrate a nexus between prior abuse and the risk of future abuse in the court's best-interests analysis).

D. Reasonable Evidence Supports the Court's Finding that Termination of Mother's and Father's Parental Rights Served the Children's Best Interests.

¶23 Once the court finds a parent unfit under at least one statutory ground for termination, "the interests of the parent and child diverge," and the court proceeds to balance the unfit parent's "interest in the care and custody of his or her child.... against the independent and often adverse interests of the child in a safe and stable home life." Kent K. , 210 Ariz. at 286, ¶ 35, 110 P.3d at 1020. "[A] determination of the child's best interest must include a finding as to how the child would benefit from a severance or be harmed by the continuation of the relationship." Maricopa County Juv. Action No. JS-500274 , 167 Ariz. 1, 5, 804 P.2d 730, 734 (1990) (emphasis omitted). Courts "must consider the totality of the circumstances existing at the time of the severance determination, including the child's adoptability and the parent's rehabilitation." Alma S. , 245 Ariz. at 148, ¶ 1, 425 P.3d at 1091. In cases where termination of a parent's rights to one child is predicated on the parent's abuse of another child, courts must also consider the connection between that abuse and the risk of future abuse to the child at issue. See Seth M., 245 Ariz. at 248, ¶ 11, 426 P.3d at 1227 ; Mario G. , 227 Ariz. at 285, ¶ 16, 257 P.3d at 1165 ; Linda V. , 211 Ariz. at 79-80 ¶¶ 14-15, 17, 117 P.3d at 798-99. "When a current placement meets the child's needs and the child's prospective adoption is otherwise legally possible and likely, a juvenile court may find that termination of parental rights, so as to permit adoption, is in the child's best interests." Demetrius L. v. Joshlynn F. , 239 Ariz. 1, 4, ¶ 12, 365 P.3d 353, 356 (2016). Finally, "[t]he existence and effect of a bonded relationship between a biological parent and a child, although a factor to consider, is not dispositive in addressing best interests." Dominique M. v. DCS , 240 Ariz. 96, 98, ¶ 12, 376 P.3d 699, 701 (App. 2016).

¶24 Here, based on its finding that Mother or Father abused J.M. or that they failed to protect J.M. from abuse, the juvenile court found that it had "grave concerns about the parents' protective capacities in the future." Mother and Father argue that the risk of abuse to F.M. and M.R. is remote because J.M. was a vulnerable infant, unlike the older children. But the juvenile court rejected this argument and concluded that by failing to take steps to protect J.M. from the unidentified abusing parent, "Mother and Father have demonstrated they cannot or will not protect their children." The court specifically found that:

Although [M.R. and F.M.] are no longer infants, [they] are young children who are vulnerable. [M.R.] has already been the victim of child abuse by Mother in the past.[ ] Mother and Father ... have not been forthcoming about the cause of [J.M.'s] injuries.

The court also found that "given the parents' persistent denials that any abuse occurred," both J.M. and her older siblings remained at risk of future abuse.

¶25 Reasonable evidence in the record supports these findings. M.R. was nine years old at the time of the termination hearing and F.M. was almost three-both still dependent on Mother and Father to meet their needs. Both parents' actions after learning the nature of J.M.'s injuries demonstrated they could not recognize danger and keep the children safe. As J.M.'s primary caregivers, Mother and Father are the only ones in a position to explain how her injuries occurred. Mother and Father have refused to acknowledge abuse occurred or that at least one of them was responsible. Instead, they have remained together, and neither parent has taken steps to prevent the children from being returned to the same situation that led to J.M.'s near-fatal injuries. On this record, we conclude reasonable evidence supports the court's finding that the abuse to J.M. bore a substantial connection to the risk of future abuse to the other children in Mother's and Father's care.

¶26 Moreover, reasonable evidence concerning the children's adoptability supports the juvenile court's best-interests finding. The case manager testified that F.M. and M.R. were in a kinship placement that was meeting their needs and the foster parents wished to adopt them. Due to J.M.'s special needs, she was in a separate placement for a medically-fragile child that was providing her the specialized care she required. Although J.M.'s placement was not willing to adopt, DCS identified other potential adoptive placements for her. Considering the children's stability in their current placements, and the availability of adoptive placements, the case manager testified that termination would provide the children with "a safe, secure environment, where all of their needs will be met." Reasonable evidence supports the court's finding that termination was also in the children's best interests because of their adoptability.

CONCLUSION

¶27 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the juvenile court's order terminating Mother's rights to J.M., F.M., and M.R. and Father's rights to J.M. and F.M.

      M.R.'s father's parental rights were terminated in the same proceeding. He is not a party to this appeal.

      In 2011, while Mother went shopping, she left M.R., who was two years old at the time, unsupervised inside her car for 40 minutes. The temperature outside was 106 degrees. A police officer removed M.R. from the car before she suffered any serious injury, but Mother was arrested and subsequently pled guilty to child abuse.


author: CAMPBELL, Judge:

text:
    Eric MEYER, Lela Alston, Richard C. Andrade, Reginald Bolding Jr., Mark A. Cardenas, Ken Clark, Diego Espinoza, Charlene R. Fernandez, Randall Fries, Rosanna Gabaldon, Sally Ann Gonzales, Albert Hale, Matthew A. Kopec, Johnathan R. Larkin, Stefanie Mach, Juan Jose Mendez, Lisa A. Otondo, Celeste Plumlee, Rebecca Rios, Macario Saldate, Ceci Velasqez, and Bruce Wheeler, Members of the Arizona State House of Representatives; Katie Hobbs, David Bradley, Olivia Cajero Bedford, Lupe Contreras, Andrea Dalessandro, Steve Farley, Barbara McGuire, Robert Meza, Catherine Miranda, and Martin Quezada, Members of the Arizona State Senate, Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. STATE of Arizona, a Body Politic, Defendant/Appellant.
    No. 1 CA-CV 18-0031
    Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1.
    FILED February 5, 2019
    Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix, By Rusty D. Crandell, Counsel for Defendant/Appellant
    Torres Law Group, Tempe, By Israel G. Torres; James E. Barton, II ; Sama John Golestan, Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellees
    Presiding Judge Jennifer B. Campbell delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Judge Paul J. McMurdie and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.
   CAMPBELL, Judge:

¶1 The State appeals the superior court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellees, members of the Arizona House of Representatives and Senate who voted against passage of House Bill ("H.B.") 2579 (collectively, the "Legislators"), finding Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") section 23-204, as amended by H.B. 2579, unconstitutional because it violates the Voter Protection Act ("VPA"). For the following reasons, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶2 In 2006, Arizona voters passed Proposition 202, an initiative measure commonly referred to as the "Raise the Minimum Wage for Working Arizonans Act" ("Minimum Wage Act" or "Act"). The Minimum Wage Act is codified at A.R.S. §§ 23-362, -363, and -364. The central provision at issue in this appeal falls under the enforcement provision, A.R.S. § 23-364, which empowers a county, city, or town to "regulate minimum wages and benefits within its geographic boundaries" as long as it does "not provide for a minimum wage lower than that prescribed in this article." A.R.S. § 23-364(I) (emphasis added). It goes on to state, "[t]his article ... shall not limit the authority of the legislature or any other body to adopt any law or policy that requires payment of higher or supplemental wages or benefits , or that extends such protections to employers or employees not covered by this article." Id. (emphasis added).

¶3 In May 2016, the legislature adopted H.B. 2579, which amended A.R.S. § 23-204 and preempted the field of nonwage benefits, removing from cities and towns the power to regulate nonwage benefits. H.B. 2579 passed with majority votes in both the House and Senate, but neither chamber received a three-fourths' majority vote. The relevant language of the bill provides:

The regulation of employee benefits, including nonwage compensation, paid and unpaid leave and other absences, meal breaks and rest periods, is of statewide concern. The regulation of nonwage employee benefits pursuant to this chapter and federal law is not subject to further regulation by a city, town or other political subdivision of this state.

A.R.S. § 23-204(A).

¶4 In June 2016, the plaintiffs sued the State in the superior court seeking declaratory relief, asking H.B. 2579 be found unconstitutional because it violated the VPA and the home-rule provision of the Arizona Constitution. The plaintiffs were comprised of three groups: (1) a labor union, United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 99 ("UFCW"); (2) five individual city councilmembers from three Arizona cities ("Councilmembers"); and (3) the Legislators who voted against H.B. 2579. The State moved to dismiss the home-rule claims by all three groups of plaintiffs and moved to dismiss the VPA claims by UFCW and the Councilmembers only. The superior court granted the State's motion to dismiss in full, leaving only the Legislators' VPA claim.

¶5 The State and Legislators filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the VPA claim. After briefing and oral argument, the court granted the Legislators' motion for summary judgment, ruling that H.B. 2579 impliedly repealed a portion of the Minimum Wage Act and therefore violated the VPA. The court also awarded the Legislators all attorney fees requested, including fees for opposing the motion to dismiss. This timely appeal from the State followed.

DISCUSSION

¶6 We review grants of summary judgment and questions of statutory interpretation de novo. BMO Harris Bank, N.A. v. Wildwood Creek Ranch, LLC , 236 Ariz. 363, 365, ¶ 7, 340 P.3d 1071, 1073 (2015). "Our primary objective in construing statutes adopted by initiative is to give effect to the intent of the electorate." State v. Gomez , 212 Ariz. 55, 57, ¶ 11, 127 P.3d 873, 875 (2006). If the statute's language is unambiguous and is subject to only one reasonable meaning, we apply that meaning without resorting to other statutory interpretation methods. Id. ; see also J.D. v. Hegyi , 236 Ariz. 39, 40-41, ¶ 6, 335 P.3d 1118, 1119-20 (2014). Only if the language is ambiguous do we discern the electorate's intent by resorting to secondary interpretation methods, such as consideration of the statute's subject matter, historical background, effects and consequences, and spirit and purpose. BSI Holdings, LLC v. Ariz. Dep't of Transp. , 244 Ariz. 17, 19, ¶ 9, 417 P.3d 782, 784 (2018) (citation omitted).

I. Applicability of the VPA

¶7 The electorate shares lawmaking power with the legislature under Arizona's system of government. See Cave Creek Unified Sch. Dist. v. Ducey , 233 Ariz. 1, 4, ¶ 8, 308 P.3d 1152, 1155 (2013) (citation omitted). "[T]he people reserve[d] the power to propose laws and amendments to the constitution and to enact or reject such laws and amendments at the polls, independently of the legislature" through the initiative and referendum processes. Ariz. Const. art. 4, pt. 1, § 1 (1).

¶8 In 1998, Arizona voters adopted the VPA as a constitutional amendment, limiting the legislature's power to amend, repeal, or supersede voter-approved laws. See Ariz. Const. art. 4, pt. 1, § 1 (6)(B)-(C), (14). When the legislature addresses the subject of a voter-approved initiative, the constitutional limitations of the VPA apply and limit the legislature's otherwise plenary authority. See id. The VPA prohibits legislative repeal of initiative measures approved by the voters and permits a legislative amendment to an initiative only when the amendment "furthers the purposes" of the initiative and is passed by "at least three-fourths of the members of each house of the legislature." Id.

¶9 The VPA's constitutional limitations apply to the Minimum Wage Act because it was passed by voter initiative. Consequently, the legislature cannot repeal or supersede the Minimum Wage Act, and any amendment would have to further its purpose and be passed by three-fourths' vote in both chambers of the legislature. The parties do not dispute that H.B. 2579 was passed without the requisite three-fourths' vote. The dispositive question, therefore, is whether the legislature impermissibly amended or superseded a portion of the Minimum Wage Act in violation of the VPA when enacting H.B. 2579.

II. Constitutionality of H.B. 2579

¶10 H.B. 2579 did not explicitly repeal or supersede the Minimum Wage Act, cf. State Land Dep't v. Tucson Rock & Sand Co. , 107 Ariz. 74, 77, 481 P.2d 867, 870 (1971) (a statute expressly repeals another when it "nam[es] ... those [provisions] to be superseded"), but the parties disagree about whether H.B. 2579 impliedly amends or repeals provisions contained within the Act. To begin, we analyze the two statutes in light of the VPA. See Cave Creek Unified Sch. Dist. , 233 Ariz. at 7, ¶ 23, 308 P.3d 1152 ("Although [the house bill] did not expressly state that it repealed, amended, or otherwise changed [the initiative], we must consider its effect on the fundamental purposes underlying the VPA." (citation omitted) ). "The intent of the VPA, construed from its text and structure, was to limit changes to voter-approved laws." Id.

¶11 A statute can be impliedly amended or repealed through "repugnancy" or "inconsistency" with a more recent and apparently conflicting statute. UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am. v. Craig , 200 Ariz. 327, 333, ¶ 29, 26 P.3d 510, 516 (2001) (implied repeal); Ariz. State Tax Comm'n v. Reiser , 109 Ariz. 473, 479, 512 P.2d 16, 22 (1973) (implied amendment). "An implied amendment is an act which purports to be independent, but which in substance alters, modifies, or adds to a prior act." Cave Creek Unified Sch. Dist. , 233 Ariz. at 7, ¶ 24, 308 P.3d at 1158 (quoting 1A Sutherland Statutory Construction § 22:13 (7th ed. 2012) ).

¶12 The Minimum Wage Act empowered counties, cities, and towns to "regulate minimum wages and benefits ," and authorized "the legislature or any other body to adopt any law or policy that requires payment of higher or supplemental wages or benefits, or that extends such protections to employers or employees not covered by this article." A.R.S. § 23-364(I) (emphasis added). H.B. 2579 explicitly removed from cities, towns, and other political subdivisions the authority to regulate "employee benefits, including nonwage compensation." A.R.S. § 23-204(A). H.B. 2579 defines nonwage compensation to include:

[F]ringe benefits, welfare benefits, child or adult care plans, sick pay, vacation pay, severance pay, commissions, bonuses, retirement plan or pension contributions, other employment benefits provided in 29 United States Code § 2611 and other amounts promised to the employee that are more than the minimum compensation due an employee by reason of employment.

A.R.S. § 23-204(C). Therefore, if A.R.S. § 23-204, as amended by H.B. 2579, amends or repeals the Minimum Wage Act, it will have done so in violation of the VPA.

¶13 The State argues the Minimum Wage Act does not apply to nonwage employee benefits and accordingly does not grant counties, cities, and towns the power to regulate them. The Legislators, on the other hand, argue that by its terms, the Minimum Wage Act demonstrably grants counties, cities, and towns the power to regulate nonwage benefits. Therefore, to discern the constitutionality of H.B. 2579, we must determine whether H.B. 2579 and the Minimum Wage Act can be harmonized. This analysis hinges on the meaning of the word "benefits" as used in the Minimum Wage Act.

¶14 The State contends that H.B. 2579 and the Minimum Wage Act can be read harmoniously because the term "benefits" has a different meaning in both statutes. H.B. 2579 defines "benefits" to include nonwage employee compensation. See A.R.S. § 23-204(A). Benefits is not defined in the Minimum Wage Act. See A.R.S. §§ 23-362, -363, -364; see also State v. Dann , 220 Ariz. 351, 368, 207 P.3d 604, 621 (2009) ("When a word in a statute is undefined, courts apply the ordinary meaning of the term."). The State argues "benefits" means "the advantage or privilege something gives" and in the context of the Minimum Wage Act, "benefits" means only the benefits provided under the Minimum Wage Act-namely, the enforcement rights provided in A.R.S. § 23-364. The Legislators conversely argue "benefits" includes any "non-wage compensation." The superior court found that "the meaning proposed by the State may be a permissible meaning of 'benefits' according to a dictionary definition of the word, [but] it is not a reasonable meaning in light of the context of the word." We agree.

¶15 In statutory interpretation, associated words bear on one another's meaning. "[A] statutory term is interpreted in context of the accompanying words." Estate of Braden ex rel. Gabaldon v. State , 228 Ariz. 323, 326, ¶ 13, 266 P.3d 349, 352 (2011). In the context of the Minimum Wage Act, "benefits" is used twice-both times in conjunction with the word "wages," forming the phrases "minimum wages and benefits" and "minimum wages or benefits," respectively. Therefore, the word "benefits" has an associated, but separate meaning from the word "wages."

¶16 When used together, the only reasonable interpretation is that "wages" and "benefits" are complementary parts of employee compensation as a whole. See Black's Law Dictionary 343 (10th ed. 2014) ("Compensation consists of wages and benefits in return for services" and "includes wages, stock option plans, profit-sharing, commissions, bonuses, golden parachutes, vacation, sick pay, medical benefits, disability, leaves of absence, and expense reimbursement." (citation omitted) ); see generally State v. Pena , 235 Ariz. 277, 279, ¶ 6, 331 P.3d 412, 414 (2014) ("Absent statutory definitions, courts ... may look to dictionaries."). "[T]he words of a statute are to be given their ordinary meaning unless it appears from the context or otherwise that a different meaning is intended." Ariz. ex rel. Brnovich v. Maricopa Cty. Cmty. Coll. Dist. Bd. , 243 Ariz. 539, 541, ¶ 7, 416 P.3d 803, 805 (2018) (citation omitted). At oral argument in the superior court, the State conceded that "non-wage benefits received by an employee from an employer is the consistent historical meaning of the word 'benefits' when used in the syntactic setting of either 'minimum wages and benefits' or 'wages and benefits.' " It is clear from the text that by granting a county, city, or town the ability to "regulate minimum wages and benefits," the intent of the electorate was to grant these bodies the ability to regulate wages and nonwage benefits. The State's interpretation ignores the plain text of the statute and the association between the words "benefits" and "wages."

¶17 The State emphasizes that the other provisions of the Minimum Wage Act make no mention of benefits, including the substantive provision that sets the minimum wage. See A.R.S. § 23-363. Because the only provision that mentions benefits is the enforcement provision, § 23-364, the State argues "benefits" can only mean those benefits-i.e. , enforcement rights-that are provided under that provision. However, even considering the word "benefit" in the context of the Act-while not explicitly requiring the regulation of benefits in the substantive provision-it is reasonable that the electorate granted counties, cities, and towns the ability to further regulate minimum wages and benefits in the enforcement provision, as long as they do "not provide for a minimum wage lower than that prescribed in [the] article." A.R.S. § 23-363 sets a mandatory minimum wage, whereas the enforcement provision gives these bodies the option to further increase wages and benefits , rather than requiring them to do so.

¶18 The State further argues that the Minimum Wage Act uses "benefits" and "protections" interchangeably when it authorizes "the legislature or any other body to adopt any law or policy that requires payment of higher or supplemental wages or benefits, or that extends such protections to employers or employees not covered by this article." A.R.S. § 23-364(I) (emphasis added). First, the plain grammatical reading of this sentence is that "higher or supplemental wages" and "higher or supplemental ... benefits" both are protections that the legislature or other body can extend to employers or employees not covered by the Minimum Wage Act.

¶19 Second, the State's argument that this provision uses "benefits" and "protections" interchangeably-and "benefits" encompasses only the minimum wage protections provided in this section-is not well taken. The State proposes only one definition of "benefits" and does not argue that "benefits" has a different meaning each time it is used in the statute. See Obregon v. Indus. Comm'n , 217 Ariz. 612, 616, ¶ 21, 177 P.3d 873, 877 (App. 2008) ("It is a normal rule of statutory construction that identical words used in different parts of the same Act are intended to have the same meaning." (internal quotation and citation omitted) ). Equating benefit to mean protections under the statute would lead to an impossible grammatical difficulty. It is not logical for the statute to read: "A county, city, or town may by ordinance regulate minimum wages and protections within its geographic boundaries." It makes even less sense to say that the statute "shall not limit the authority of the legislature or any other body to adopt any law or policy that requires payment of higher or supplemental wages or protections ," because protections are not paid in the sense that wages and benefits can be paid.

¶20 Third, the State argues that interpreting benefits to mean nonwage benefits renders the "higher or supplemental" language of the Minimum Wage Act superfluous because "it does not make sense to say that municipalities are free to 'require[ ]' payment of 'higher or supplemental' fringe benefits when the [Minimum Wage Act] does not require payment of any fringe benefits at all." A grammatical reading of the sentence reveals that the phrase "payment of higher or supplemental" applies to both "wages" and "benefits." There is nothing inherently prohibitive of a city passing a new law requiring payment of higher or supplemental nonwage benefits-where payment of benefits previously was not required-because payment of some benefits is higher than payment of no benefits. Further, the payment of nonwage benefits could be supplemental in reference to the payment of required wages.

¶21 In contrast, the Legislators' proposed definition of "benefits"-nonwage benefits received by an employee from an employer-reflects the ordinary and common meaning of the term when it is used in conjunction with wages and when looking at its plain meaning as it is used in the Act. Thus, because the meaning of the word "benefits" can be discerned from the plain text of the statute, the word "benefits" is not ambiguous.

¶22 The State next asks us to look beyond the statutory text itself, urging us to look at the title of the voter initiative and the title of the substantive provision in the Act, A.R.S. § 23-363, to conclude that the Act's purpose is to regulate wages, not nonwage benefits. The title and headings of statutes are permissible indicators of meaning but cannot override the text. See State v. Eagle , 196 Ariz. 188, 190, ¶ 7, 994 P.2d 395, 397 (2000) (noting that where an ambiguity exists, the title of a statute may be used to aid in its interpretation, although headings are not part of the law itself). Because we determine the text is not ambiguous, we need not turn to the titles of the initiative or provisions to aid in interpreting the Minimum Wage Act.

¶23 The State argues the superior court erred by not considering other secondary methods of statutory construction beyond the ordinary meaning of "benefits." When interpreting a statute, courts first look to the statute's plain language as "the most reliable indicator of its meaning." Harris Corp. v. Ariz. Dep't of Revenue , 233 Ariz. 377, 381, ¶ 13, 312 P.3d 1143, 1147 (App. 2013) (citation omitted). When read in that fashion and the meaning of the statute is clear, our analysis ends. See State ex rel. Romley v. Hauser , 209 Ariz. 539, 541, ¶ 10, 105 P.3d 1158, 1160 (2005) ("When the plain text of a statute is clear and unambiguous there is no need to resort to other methods of statutory interpretation to determine the legislature's intent because its intent is readily discernable from the face of the statute." (citation omitted) ). The State urges the court to look at the legislative history of the Minimum Wage Act, to interpret the Act to avoid ERISA preemption issues and constitutional law difficulties, and to interpret the Act in a way that will not impermissibly change the law. Again, we need not address these secondary methods of statutory interpretation; because the text of the statute is unambiguous, our statutory interpretation stops at the plain meaning of the words. We look no further than the language of the statutes to conclude H.B. 2579 impliedly amends and repeals a portion of the Minimum Wage Act.

¶24 We are aware that the finding of an implied repeal of statutes is not favored, UNUM Life Ins. Co. , 200 Ariz. at 333, ¶ 28, 26 P.3d at 516, but it is required when, as here, "conflicting statutes cannot be harmonized to give each effect and meaning." Cave Creek Unified Sch. Dist. , 233 Ariz. at 7, ¶ 24, 308 P.3d at 1158. H.B. 2579 explicitly stripped the ability of counties, cities, and towns to regulate nonwage employee benefits. A.R.S. § 23-204(A). The Minimum Wage Act specifically empowered counties, cities, and towns to regulate benefits, which we have found to mean nonwage benefits. H.B. 2579 explicitly prohibits what the Minimum Wage Act permits, and thus, the two statutes cannot be harmonized. Because H.B. 2579 impliedly amends and repeals a portion of the Minimum Wage Act, it violates the VPA's express limitations on legislative changes to voter-approved laws.

III. Attorney Fees

¶25 The Legislators requested attorney fees in the amount of $33,450 under the private attorney general doctrine. The affidavit for attorney fees included time expended representing the Councilmembers and UCFW on the VPA claim, representing all three groups of plaintiffs for the home-rule claim, and opposing the State's motion to dismiss. The court ultimately dismissed the entire home-rule claim and the VPA claims brought by Councilmembers and UCFW.

¶26 We review an award of attorney fees under the private attorney general doctrine for an abuse of discretion. Arnold v. Ariz. Dep't of Health Services , 160 Ariz. 593, 609, 775 P.2d 521, 537 (1989). Attorney fees can be awarded under the private attorney general doctrine to "a party who has vindicated a right that: (1) benefits a large number of people; (2) requires private enforcement; and (3) is of societal importance." Id. "The purpose of the doctrine is to promote vindication of important public rights." Id. (internal quotation and citation omitted). The superior court awarded the Legislators all attorney fees they requested.

¶27 The State acknowledges that our supreme court's adoption of the private attorney general doctrine is binding authority. The State contends, however, that the Legislators are not entitled to an award of attorney fees for work on arguments on which they did not prevail and that the court should have reduced the attorney fees to exclude fees for work on opposing the motion to dismiss, which the Legislators lost. We agree.

¶28 When the result sought in the litigation is accomplished, "fees should be awarded for time spent even on unsuccessful legal theories. Where a party has achieved only partial or limited success, however, it would be unreasonable to award compensation for all hours expended, including time spent on ... unsuccessful issues or claims." Schweiger v. China Doll Rest. Inc. , 138 Ariz. 183, 189, 673 P.2d 927, 933 (App. 1983).

¶29 Here, the Legislators accomplished the result they sought to achieve-declaring H.B. 2579 unconstitutional. However, the superior court awarded fees for time spent representing plaintiffs on unsuccessful claims that were ultimately dismissed. The Legislators are not entitled to attorney fees for time spent on the unsuccessful home-rule claim nor for time spent representing the dismissed plaintiffs, UCFW and the Councilmembers. However, the Legislators were ultimately successful on their VPA claim, and that claim meets the criteria to award fees under the private attorney general doctrine.

¶30 First, the resolution of the litigation benefits a large number of people in the state, including all employees and employers subject to the Minimum Wage Act. The right to regulate wages and benefits belongs to counties, cities, and towns; thus, its vindication benefits large numbers of Arizonans. The Legislators in this case "sought no recovery for themselves and achieved no personal gain or advantage; they did not act for their own benefit or for the benefit of a particular class or group, but instead acted to vindicate the interests of the entire citizenry of the state." Kadish v. Ariz. State Land Dep't , 177 Ariz. 322, 329, 868 P.2d 335, 342 (App. 1993).

¶31 Second, the vindication of the right the Legislators asserted required a legal challenge to a statute adopted by the legislature and could only have been privately enforced. See Ariz. Ctr. for Law in Pub. Int. v. Hassell , 172 Ariz. 356, 371, 837 P.2d 158, 173 (App. 1991). Finally, the vindication of the right asserted by the Legislators is of societal importance. The Legislators established the right of counties, cities, and towns to regulate nonwage benefits. By challenging the constitutionality of H.B. 2579, which took away this right, the Legislators ensured that these bodies could provide for regulation of nonwage benefits for a large number of employees within the state. The superior court erred in awarding attorney fees related to the home-rule claim as to all plaintiffs, the VPA claim as to the Councilmembers and UCFW, and related to the motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the Legislators are only entitled to attorney fees for time spent representing the successful group of plaintiffs on the VPA claim.

CONCLUSION

¶32 We affirm the superior court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Legislators. We vacate the award of attorney fees in favor of the Legislators and remand for a redetermination of the amount of the award consistent with this opinion. We award the Legislators their fees on appeal upon their compliance with Rule 21 of the Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure.