13-1407. Defenses
A. It is a defense to a prosecution pursuant to sections 13-1404 and 13-1405 involving a minor if the act was done in furtherance of lawful medical practice.
B. It is a defense to a prosecution pursuant to sections 13-1404 and 13-1405 in which the victim's lack of consent is based on incapacity to consent because the victim was fifteen, sixteen or seventeen years of age if at the time the defendant engaged in the conduct constituting the offense the defendant did not know and could not reasonably have known the age of the victim.
C. It is a defense to a prosecution pursuant to section 13-1402, 13-1404, 13-1405 or 13-1406 if the act was done by a duly licensed physician or registered nurse or a person acting under the physician's or nurse's direction, or any other person who renders emergency care at the scene of an emergency occurrence, the act consisted of administering a recognized and lawful form of treatment that was reasonably adapted to promoting the physical or mental health of the patient and the treatment was administered in an emergency when the duly licensed physician or registered nurse or a person acting under the physician's or nurse's direction, or any other person rendering emergency care at the scene of an emergency occurrence, reasonably believed that no one competent to consent could be consulted and that a reasonable person, wishing to safeguard the welfare of the patient, would consent.
D. It is a defense to a prosecution pursuant to section 13-1404 or 13-1405 that the person was the spouse of the other person at the time of commission of the act. It is not a defense to a prosecution pursuant to section 13-1406 that the defendant was the spouse of the victim at the time of commission of the act.
E. It is a defense to a prosecution pursuant to sections 13-1405, 13-1430, 13-3553, subsection A, paragraph 4 and 13-3560 if the victim is fifteen, sixteen or seventeen years of age, the defendant is under nineteen years of age or attending high school and is no more than twenty-four months older than the victim and the conduct is consensual.
Notes of Decisions
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle, 379 P.3d 197 (Ariz. 2016).
· cites it 98× “2d 503, 506-07 (1997) (rejecting the argument that defenses in § 13-1407 should be injected into the definition of sexual abuse in § 13-1404).”
State v. Getz, 944 P.2d 503 (Ariz. 1997).
· cites it 28× “2 The state argues that reading the affirmative defenses found in A.R.S. § 13-1407 in conjunction with A.R.”
State v. Gallegos, 870 P.2d 1097 (Ariz. 1994).
· cites it 12× “See generally A.R.S. § 13-1407 (defenses). B. Jury Instructions on Sexual Conduct with a Minor The jury received the following written instructions on the charges of sexual conduct with a minor and attempted sexual conduct with a minor: The crime of sexual conduct with a minor…”
State v. Gamez, 258 P.3d 263 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 13× “Our supreme court rejected these arguments on the ground that sexual conduct occurred before death, but also noted that had the legislature intended to establish such a mistaken belief as a defense, it would have expressly done so when it enacted A.R.S. § 13-1407. 7 Id. at 9-10,…”
State v. Simpson, 173 P.3d 1027 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 16× “The affirmative defenses applicable to specific sexual offenses in Chapter 14 are set forth in A.R.S. § 13-1407. See State v. Getz, 189 Ariz.”
State v. Fischer, 199 P.3d 663 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 10× “, the charged conduct would be immunized pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-1407(D), which provides “[i]t is a defense to a prosecution pursuant to § 13-1404 or 13-1405 that the person was the spouse of the other person at the time of commission of the act.”
May v. Ryan, 245 F. Supp. 3d 1145 (D. Ariz. 2017).
· cites it 5× “” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1407 (E) (2008). Arizona law also places the burden on the defendant" to prove the affirmative defense—that is, to disprove that he had a sexual intent—by a preponderance of the evidence.”
State v. Berger, 134 P.3d 378 (Ariz. 2006).
· cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 13-1407(F). But because his conduct was "swept up in the broad statutory terms," Davis, 206 Ariz.”
State v. Falcone, 264 P.3d 878 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 12× “Instead, the court found that, with respect to the sexual conduct charges, Falcone had not been prejudiced by either Jury Instruction 26 or the preclusion of evidence because he “did not advance or disclose a claimed defense pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-1407[ (B) ] ... [which]…”
State v. Superior Court, 744 P.2d 725 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 15× “A major addition to the criminal code was A.R.S. § 13-1407, which provides a defense to certain sexual offenses in certain circumstances.”
State v. Davis, 79 P.3d 64 (Ariz. 2003).
· cites it 2× “section 13-1407, an accused can defend a charge under section 13-1405, the statute under which the jury convicted Davis, by asserting his lack of knowledge of the victim's age if the victim's lack of consent is based on incapacity to consent and the victim is fifteen, sixteen or…”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1407(A): 2 cases
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1407(B): 13 cases
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle, 379 P.3d 197 (Ariz. 2016).
“2d 503, 506-07 (1997) (rejecting the argument that defenses in § 13-1407 should be injected into the definition of sexual abuse in § 13-1404).”
State v. Getz, 944 P.2d 503 (Ariz. 1997).
“2 The state argues that reading the affirmative defenses found in A.R.S. § 13-1407 in conjunction with A.R.”
State v. Gamez, 258 P.3d 263 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
“Our supreme court rejected these arguments on the ground that sexual conduct occurred before death, but also noted that had the legislature intended to establish such a mistaken belief as a defense, it would have expressly done so when it enacted A.R.S. § 13-1407. 7 Id. at 9-10,…”
State v. Gallegos, 870 P.2d 1097 (Ariz. 1994).
“See generally A.R.S. § 13-1407 (defenses). B. Jury Instructions on Sexual Conduct with a Minor The jury received the following written instructions on the charges of sexual conduct with a minor and attempted sexual conduct with a minor: The crime of sexual conduct with a minor…”
State v. Superior Court, 744 P.2d 725 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
“A major addition to the criminal code was A.R.S. § 13-1407, which provides a defense to certain sexual offenses in certain circumstances.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1407(D): 2 cases
State v. Fischer, 199 P.3d 663 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
“, the charged conduct would be immunized pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-1407(D), which provides “[i]t is a defense to a prosecution pursuant to § 13-1404 or 13-1405 that the person was the spouse of the other person at the time of commission of the act.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1407(E): 29 cases
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle, 379 P.3d 197 (Ariz. 2016).
“2d 503, 506-07 (1997) (rejecting the argument that defenses in § 13-1407 should be injected into the definition of sexual abuse in § 13-1404).”
State v. Simpson, 173 P.3d 1027 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“The affirmative defenses applicable to specific sexual offenses in Chapter 14 are set forth in A.R.S. § 13-1407. See State v. Getz, 189 Ariz.”
May v. Ryan, 245 F. Supp. 3d 1145 (D. Ariz. 2017).
“” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1407 (E) (2008). Arizona law also places the burden on the defendant" to prove the affirmative defense—that is, to disprove that he had a sexual intent—by a preponderance of the evidence.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1407(F): 2 cases
State v. Getz, 944 P.2d 503 (Ariz. 1997).
“2 The state argues that reading the affirmative defenses found in A.R.S. § 13-1407 in conjunction with A.R.”
State v. Berger, 134 P.3d 378 (Ariz. 2006).
“A.R.S. § 13-1407(F). But because his conduct was "swept up in the broad statutory terms," Davis, 206 Ariz.”
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.