A. If the defendant is charged with committing a sexual offense, the court may admit evidence that the defendant committed past acts that would constitute a sexual offense and may consider the bearing this evidence has on any matter to which it is relevant.
B. This section does not limit the admission or consideration of evidence under any court rule.
C. For the purposes of this section, "sexual offense" means any of the following:
1. Sexual abuse in violation of section 13-1404.
2. Sexual conduct with a minor in violation of section 13-1405.
3. Sexual assault in violation of section 13-1406.
4. Sexual assault of a spouse if the offense was committed before the effective date of this amendment to this section.
5. Molestation of a child in violation of section 13-1410.
6. Continuous sexual abuse of a child in violation of section 13-1417.
7. Sexual misconduct by a behavioral health professional in violation of section 13-1418.
8. Commercial sexual exploitation of a minor in violation of section 13-3552.
9. Sexual exploitation of a minor in violation of section 13-3553.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases, 2001–2017 · leading case:
State v. Williams, 99 P.3d 43 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
State v. Williams, 99 P.3d 43 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 17× “§ 13-1420(C),” does not necessarily preclude a definition more expansive than that provided in A.R.S. § 13-1420. We are unconvinced that, in promulgating Rule 404(c) and referencing A.”
State v. Aguilar, 97 P.3d 865 (Ariz. 2004).
· cites it 13× “By expressly making reference to A.R.S. § 13-1420(0), Rule 404(c) broadened the types of sexual offense cases in which other act evidence might be admissible.”
Norgord v. State Ex Rel. Berning, 33 P.3d 1166 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
“Omission of indecent exposure from those statutes only means that that offense does not trigger human immunodeficiency virus testing, § 13-1415, and that a charge of indecent exposure does not automatically permit a trial court to admit evidence of prior acts under § 13-1420. ¶…”
Morehart v. Barton, 250 P.3d 1139 (Ariz. 2011).
· cites it 2× “Similarly, A.R.S. § 13-1420 provides that “[t]he victim has the right to be present throughout all criminal proceedings in which the defendant has the right to be present.”
State v. LEBRUN, 213 P.3d 332 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
“On appeal, the supreme court concluded that, because Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-1420(C)(3)(2007) includes sexual assault as a “sexual offense,” charges involving nonconsensual heterosexual contact between adults were included in the aberrant sexual propensity exception.”
State v. Gehon (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 8× “Consistent with the purpose of the statute, other acts involving sadomasochistic behaviors, though not specifically enumerated in A.R.S. § 13-1420, are admissible for propensity purposes.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1420(0) — 1 case
State v. Aguilar, 97 P.3d 865 (Ariz. 2004).
“By expressly making reference to A.R.S. § 13-1420(0), Rule 404(c) broadened the types of sexual offense cases in which other act evidence might be admissible.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1420(B) — 1 case
State v. Gehon (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).
“Consistent with the purpose of the statute, other acts involving sadomasochistic behaviors, though not specifically enumerated in A.R.S. § 13-1420, are admissible for propensity purposes.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1420(C) — 3 cases
State v. Aguilar, 97 P.3d 865 (Ariz. 2004).
“By expressly making reference to A.R.S. § 13-1420(0), Rule 404(c) broadened the types of sexual offense cases in which other act evidence might be admissible.”
State v. Williams, 99 P.3d 43 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
“§ 13-1420(C),” does not necessarily preclude a definition more expansive than that provided in A.R.S. § 13-1420. We are unconvinced that, in promulgating Rule 404(c) and referencing A.”
State v. Gehon (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).
“Consistent with the purpose of the statute, other acts involving sadomasochistic behaviors, though not specifically enumerated in A.R.S. § 13-1420, are admissible for propensity purposes.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1420(C)(3) — 1 case
State v. Williams, 99 P.3d 43 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
“§ 13-1420(C),” does not necessarily preclude a definition more expansive than that provided in A.R.S. § 13-1420. We are unconvinced that, in promulgating Rule 404(c) and referencing A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1420(C)(3)(2007) — 1 case
State v. LEBRUN, 213 P.3d 332 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
“On appeal, the supreme court concluded that, because Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-1420(C)(3)(2007) includes sexual assault as a “sexual offense,” charges involving nonconsensual heterosexual contact between adults were included in the aberrant sexual propensity exception.”
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.