13-1405. Sexual conduct with a minor; classification
A. A person commits sexual conduct with a minor by intentionally or knowingly engaging in sexual intercourse or oral sexual contact with any person who is under eighteen years of age.
B. Sexual conduct with a minor who is twelve years of age or under and who suffers serious physical injury is a class 1 felony and is punishable by imprisonment in the custody of the state department of corrections for natural life as determined and in accordance with the procedures provided in section 13-752. A defendant who is sentenced to natural life is not eligible for commutation, parole, work furlough, work release or release from confinement on any basis. Sexual conduct with a minor who is under fifteen years of age is a class 2 felony and is punishable pursuant to section 13-705. Sexual conduct with a minor who is at least fifteen years of age is a class 6 felony. Sexual conduct with a minor who is at least fifteen years of age is a class 4 felony if the person is more than sixty months older than the victim and is older than twenty-one years of age at the time of the offense and, if placed on probation, the convicted person shall be sentenced to serve one year in jail. Sexual conduct with a minor who is at least fifteen years of age is a class 2 felony if the person is or was in a position of trust and the convicted person is not eligible for suspension of sentence, probation, pardon or release from confinement on any basis except as specifically authorized by section 31-233, subsection A or B until the sentence imposed has been served or commuted.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
215
cases (
42 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case:
State v. Ortega, 206 P.3d 769 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
State v. Ortega, 206 P.3d 769 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 20× “It concluded that molestation could not be a lesser included offense of sexual conduct under the same elements test because molestation involves only victims under the age of fifteen, whereas sexual conduct can be committed against a victim under the age of eighteen.”
State v. Ramsey, 124 P.3d 756 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 10× “¶ 13 Ramsey cites several out-of-state cases for the proposition that § 13-1417 “is not a continuing-course-of-conduet statute because it mandates three or more separate ‘violations’ of A.R.S. §§ 13-1405, 13-1406 or 13-1410.” None of those eases, however, involved a defendant…”
State v. Gamez, 258 P.3d 263 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 14× “We find Gamez’s logic flawed: indeed, if denial of knowledge of some victims’ ages can be an affirmative defense, then knowledge of the victim’s age cannot be an element.”
State v. Bartlett, 830 P.2d 823 (Ariz. 1992).
· cites it 14× “01, requiring the trial court to impose mandatory consecutive sentences on the two counts.”
State v. Gallegos, 870 P.2d 1097 (Ariz. 1994).
· cites it 6× “Defendant argues that if the victim was dead at the time of the sexual penetration, his conduct would not be a crime within the meaning of the statute because § 13-1405 only criminalizes sexual conduct with a person.”
United States v. Faustino Gomez, 757 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. 2014).
· cites it 5× “” Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 13-1405. Although the ease law that existed in 2006 did not explicitly enumerate the elements of “sexual abuse of a minor,” these three elements were sufficient to fall categorically within the then-existing BIA and Ninth Circuit definition.”
State v. Falcone, 264 P.3d 878 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 17× “The court did not address Falcone’s argument that the definition of sexual conduct with a minor found in A.R.S. § 13-1405 requires the state to prove, as an element of that offense, that a defendant knew the age of his victim when he engaged in sexual conduct with him.”
State v. Davis, 79 P.3d 64 (Ariz. 2003).
· cites it 4× “") section 13-1405 (1997): count one with T.”
State v. Getz, 944 P.2d 503 (Ariz. 1997).
· cites it 8× “1996)) (Molesting a child under the age of fourteen by directly or indirectly touching the private parts of such child or causing the child to touch the private parts of the person is a class two felony.”
State v. Robinson, 735 P.2d 801 (Ariz. 1987).
· cites it 4× “See A.R.S. §§ 13-1405, -1410. Robinson was sentenced to consecutive maximum terms of fourteen years for each count.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1405(13) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1405(A) — 60 cases
State v. Gamez, 258 P.3d 263 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
“We find Gamez’s logic flawed: indeed, if denial of knowledge of some victims’ ages can be an affirmative defense, then knowledge of the victim’s age cannot be an element.”
State v. Gallegos, 870 P.2d 1097 (Ariz. 1994).
“Defendant argues that if the victim was dead at the time of the sexual penetration, his conduct would not be a crime within the meaning of the statute because § 13-1405 only criminalizes sexual conduct with a person.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1405(B) — 28 cases
State v. Ortega, 206 P.3d 769 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
“It concluded that molestation could not be a lesser included offense of sexual conduct under the same elements test because molestation involves only victims under the age of fifteen, whereas sexual conduct can be committed against a victim under the age of eighteen.”
State v. Bartlett, 830 P.2d 823 (Ariz. 1992).
“01, requiring the trial court to impose mandatory consecutive sentences on the two counts.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1405(b) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.