In a recent ruling, the Arizona Court of Appeals decided that a father involved in a divorce case can testify about financial matters even if he invokes his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination regarding domestic violence allegations. This decision affects Gregory Winters, who is currently in a custody dispute with his ex-wife, Macie Perez, and has significant implications for how similar cases may be handled in the future.
The ruling came from the case Winters v. Perez, No. 1 CA-SA 26-0094, filed on August 12, 2026. The court's decision allows Winters to present evidence about the division of marital assets and debts, despite his refusal to answer questions related to a domestic violence incident. This ruling is crucial because it clarifies the boundaries of the Fifth Amendment in civil proceedings, particularly in family law cases.
Gregory Winters and Macie Perez were married in March 2019 and share three minor children. In 2024, Perez filed for divorce, leading to a dispute over various issues, including child custody, child support, and property division. A significant point of contention arose when Perez alleged a history of domestic violence by Winters, including a specific incident in December 2023 when Winters reportedly brandished a gun.
During the divorce proceedings, Winters indicated that he would invoke his Fifth Amendment right if questioned about the December incident. However, he sought to testify about unrelated financial issues, arguing that these matters should not be affected by his decision to invoke the privilege. The superior court initially ruled that Winters could not testify at all, prompting him to seek special action review from the Arizona Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals, led by Vice Chief Judge David D. Weinzweig, ruled that the superior court erred in its decision. The court emphasized that while invoking the Fifth Amendment on one issue can lead to a negative inference regarding that issue, it should not bar a party from testifying about unrelated matters. The court stated, “A party who invokes the Fifth Amendment ‘should suffer no penalty for his silence.’” This means that Winters can testify about financial matters without waiving his right against self-incrimination regarding the domestic violence allegations.
The ruling also clarified the distinction between different issues in a dissolution case. The court pointed out that while domestic violence may be relevant to custody and parenting time, it does not affect the division of marital property. Therefore, Winters should not be penalized for exercising his constitutional rights.
This decision has significant implications for future family law cases in Arizona. It establishes that individuals can invoke their Fifth Amendment rights on specific issues without losing the ability to testify on unrelated matters. This could encourage more individuals to exercise their rights without fear of losing their chance to present evidence in other areas of their case.
The ruling also highlights the need for careful judicial management in family law cases. The court acknowledged concerns about the complexity that could arise from separating issues but emphasized that these complexities should not lead to a blanket prohibition on testimony. Instead, judges should manage cases to ensure that all relevant evidence can be presented while respecting constitutional rights.
Looking ahead, this ruling may set a precedent for how courts handle similar cases involving the Fifth Amendment in family law contexts. It allows for a more nuanced approach to evidence and testimony, which could benefit parties in future dissolution proceedings.
As for the next steps, the case has been remanded for further proceedings consistent with the court's opinion. Winters will be allowed to testify about financial matters, while still being precluded from discussing legal decision-making and parenting time if he invokes the privilege regarding the domestic violence incident. There is no indication in the court filing that this decision will be appealed, but the implications of this ruling will likely be felt in future family law cases across Arizona.