Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 13
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2305 (2026)

Permissible inferences

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

In an action for trafficking in stolen property:

1. Proof of possession of property recently stolen, unless satisfactorily explained, may give rise to an inference that the person in possession of the property was aware of the risk that it had been stolen or in some way participated in its theft.

2. Proof of the purchase or sale of stolen property at a price substantially below its fair market value, unless satisfactorily explained, may give rise to an inference that the person buying or selling the property was aware of the risk that it had been stolen.

3. Proof of the purchase or sale of stolen property by a dealer in property, out of the regular course of business, or without the usual indicia of ownership other than mere possession, unless satisfactorily explained, may give rise to an inference that the person buying or selling the property was aware of the risk that it had been stolen.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1980–2022 · leading case: State v. Cole, 734 P.2d 1042 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Cole, 734 P.2d 1042 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 52× “1511 (1976). The authors discuss the difficulty of obtaining persuasive circumstantial evidence of mens rea in order to convict "professional receivers masquerading as legitimate businessmen.”
State v. Alfaro, 623 P.2d 8 (Ariz. 1980). · cites it 8× “In order to invoke the inference that appellant was aware of the risk that the property was recently stolen, A.R.S. § 13-2305 requires: 1) unexplained possession of 2) recently stolen property.”
State v. Ramos, 330 P.3d 987 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 4× “As set forth in AR.S. § 13-2305(1), “possession of property recently stolen, unless satisfactorily explained, may give rise to an inference that the person in possession of the property was aware of the risk that it had been stolen or in some way participated in its theft.”
State v. Jones, 610 P.2d 51 (Ariz. 1980). · cites it 3× “The statutory inference is contained in A.R.S. § 13-2305, providing in part: “1. Proof of possession of property recently stolen, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference that the person in possession of the property was aware of the risk that it had been…”
State v. Dixon, 622 P.2d 501 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “JURY INSTRUCTION Appellant attacks as a comment on the evidence, denial of due process, or violation of his right against self-incrimination, the following jury instruction: Proof of possession of property recently stolen, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an…”
State v. Mohr, 724 P.2d 1233 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 4× “The instruction is substantially identical to the statutory inference created by A.R.S. § 13-2305(1). We hold that the instruction created an unconstitutional burden-shifting presumption.”
State v. Curiel, 634 P.2d 988 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 4× “§ 13-1802(B) specifically applies the statutory inferences of A.R.S. § 13-2305 to A.R.S. § 13-1802(A)(5).”
State v. Fancy, 676 P.2d 1134 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “Defendant contends the instruction was improper because he was not charged with being "a fence," a person dealing in stolen property on a full-time basis.”
Walker v. State, 896 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 2005). “Code § 13A-8-16 (2003); Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 13-2305 (2004); Ky.Rev.Stat.”
In Re Andrew A., 58 P.3d 527 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). “) § 13-2305(2001) (“Proof of possession of property recently stolen .”
State v. Smith, 828 P.2d 778 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 3× “§ 13-1802(B) and the language of § 13-2305 that proof of possession of property that has been recently stolen may give rise to an inference that the person in possession “was aware of the risk that it had been stolen or in some way participated in its theft” unless a…”
State v. Buchholz, 678 P.2d 488 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 13-2305(3). `Dealer in property' means a person who buys and sells property as a business.”
Show all 22 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2305(1) — 11 cases
State v. Ramos, 330 P.3d 987 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “As set forth in AR.S. § 13-2305(1), “possession of property recently stolen, unless satisfactorily explained, may give rise to an inference that the person in possession of the property was aware of the risk that it had been stolen or in some way participated in its theft.”
State v. Alfaro, 623 P.2d 8 (Ariz. 1980). “In order to invoke the inference that appellant was aware of the risk that the property was recently stolen, A.R.S. § 13-2305 requires: 1) unexplained possession of 2) recently stolen property.”
State v. Mohr, 724 P.2d 1233 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). “The instruction is substantially identical to the statutory inference created by A.R.S. § 13-2305(1). We hold that the instruction created an unconstitutional burden-shifting presumption.”
State v. Cole, 734 P.2d 1042 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). “1511 (1976). The authors discuss the difficulty of obtaining persuasive circumstantial evidence of mens rea in order to convict "professional receivers masquerading as legitimate businessmen.”
State v. Curiel, 634 P.2d 988 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981). “§ 13-1802(B) specifically applies the statutory inferences of A.R.S. § 13-2305 to A.R.S. § 13-1802(A)(5).”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2305(2001) — 1 case
In Re Andrew A., 58 P.3d 527 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). “) § 13-2305(2001) (“Proof of possession of property recently stolen .”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2305(3) — 3 cases
State v. Cole, 734 P.2d 1042 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). “1511 (1976). The authors discuss the difficulty of obtaining persuasive circumstantial evidence of mens rea in order to convict "professional receivers masquerading as legitimate businessmen.”
State v. Buchholz, 678 P.2d 488 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). “A.R.S. § 13-2305(3). `Dealer in property' means a person who buys and sells property as a business.”
State v. Buchholz, 678 P.2d 488 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983).
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.