In this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires:
1. "Harmful to minors" means that quality of any description or representation, in whatever form, of nudity, sexual activity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or sadomasochistic abuse, when both:
(a) To the average adult applying contemporary state standards with respect to what is suitable for minors, it both:
(i) Appeals to the prurient interest, when taken as a whole. In order for an item as a whole to be found or intended to have an appeal to the prurient interest, it is not necessary that the item be successful in arousing or exciting any particular form of prurient interest either in the hypothetical average person, in a member of its intended and probable recipient group or in the trier of fact.
(ii) Portrays the description or representation in a patently offensive way.
(b) Taken as a whole does not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.
2. "Item" means any material or performance which depicts or describes sexual activity and includes any book, leaflet, pamphlet, magazine, booklet, picture, drawing, photograph, film, negative, slide, motion picture, figure, object, article, novelty device, recording, transcription, live or recorded telephone message or other similar items whether tangible or intangible and including any performance, exhibition, transmission or dissemination of any of the above. An item also includes a live performance or exhibition which depicts sexual activity to the public or an audience of one or more persons. An item is obscene within the meaning of this chapter when all of the following apply:
(a) The average person, applying contemporary state standards, would find that the item, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest. In order for an item as a whole to be found or intended to have an appeal to the prurient interest, it is not necessary that the item be successful in arousing or exciting any particular form of prurient interest either in the hypothetical average person, in a member of its intended and probable recipient group or in the trier of fact.
(b) The average person, applying contemporary state standards, would find that the item depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual activity as that term is described in this section.
(c) The item, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
3. "Knowledge of the character" means having general knowledge or awareness, or reason to know, or a belief or ground for belief which warrants further inspection or inquiry of that which is reasonably susceptible to examination by the defendant both:
(a) That the item contains, depicts or describes nudity, sexual activity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement or sadomasochistic abuse, whichever is applicable, whether or not there is actual knowledge of the specific contents thereof. This knowledge can be proven by direct or circumstantial evidence, or both.
(b) If relevant to a prosecution for violating section 13-3506, 13-3506.01 or 13-3507, the age of the minor, provided that an honest mistake shall constitute an excuse from liability under this chapter if the defendant made a reasonable bona fide attempt to ascertain the true age of such minor.
4. "Nudity" means the showing of the human male or female genitals, pubic area or buttocks with less than a full opaque covering, or the showing of the female breast with less than a fully opaque covering of any portion thereof below the top of the nipple, or the depiction of covered male genitals in a discernibly turgid state.
5. "Sadomasochistic abuse" means flagellation or torture by or upon a person clad in undergarments, a mask or bizarre costume, or the condition of being fettered, bound or otherwise physically restrained on the part of one so clothed, for the purpose or in the context of sexual gratification or abuse.
6. "Sexual activity" means:
(a) Patently offensive representations or descriptions of ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated.
(b) Patently offensive representations or descriptions of masturbation, excretory functions, sadomasochistic abuse and lewd exhibition of the genitals.
7. "Sexual conduct" means acts of masturbation, homosexuality, sexual intercourse, or physical contact with a person's clothed or unclothed genitals, pubic area, buttocks or, if such person is a female, breast.
8. "Sexual excitement" means the condition of human male or female genitals when in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal.
9. "Ultimate sexual acts" means sexual intercourse, vaginal or anal, fellatio, cunnilingus, bestiality or sodomy. A sexual act is simulated when it depicts explicit sexual activity which gives the appearance of consummation of ultimate sexual acts.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
32
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case:
State v. Limpus, 625 P.2d 960 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981).
State v. Limpus, 625 P.2d 960 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 12× “The definitional section of A.R.S. § 13-3501 with which we are concerned here is A.”
State v. MacIas, 469 P.3d 472 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 4× “While Macias raised other issues concerning the indictment relating to furnishing harmful items to a minor, he did not argue that the indictment failed to give him notice of the definitions in A.R.S. § 13-3501. See id. at *5, ¶ 22. ¶33 Macias now claims that trial and appellate…”
New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982).
· cites it 2× “1981); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-3501 (2) (1978); Ark.”
State Ex Rel. Collins v. Superior Court, 787 P.2d 1042 (Ariz. 1986).
· cites it 16× “01, as amended in 1974 and later renumbered as A.R.S. § 13-3501, was drawn with an eye toward the rule enunciated in Miller.”
Byrd v. Maricopa Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 629 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir. 2011).
· cites it 2× “, Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 13-3501(4) (defining "nudity" as "the showing of the human male or female genitals, pubic area or buttocks with less than a full opaque covering .”
State v. Yegan, 221 P.3d 1027 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 6× “2009), 8 which defines “sexual conduct” for offenses related to sexual exploitation of children, the court instructed the jury under A.R.S. § 13-3501(7) (2001), which defines “sexual conduct” for crimes related to obscenity.”
State v. Evenson, 33 P.3d 780 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 4× “Required the person receiving the material that is harmful to minors to use a token in order to use the vending machine.”
State v. Hummer, 911 P.2d 609 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 6× “1989), in which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the definition of “knowledge of the character” found in A.R.S. § 13-3501(3)(a). The Ripplinger court said that the definition “may allow conviction of one who knows (or should know) that material contains limited…”
State v. Kamin, 725 P.2d 1104 (Ariz. 1986).
· cites it 6× “§ 13-3502 without evidence, other than the allegedly obscene object itself, of the elements required by that statute and A.R.S. § 13-3501. State v. Superior Court, Ariz.”
Broulette v. Starns, 161 F. Supp. 2d 1021 (D. Ariz. 2001).
· cites it 24× “That policy regulating inmate mail defined as contraband any item of obscenity as defined by A.R.S. § 13-3501 et seq. The parties agree that the standard set out in A.”
State v. Feld, 745 P.2d 146 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 7× “We therefore strive to interpret the questioned statutes to effect that intent, to the extent that is constitutionally permissible. 1. Standing Initially, we must determine whether defendants have standing to challenge the constitutionality of RICO as applied to obscenity…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3501(1) — 2 cases
State v. MacIas, 469 P.3d 472 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).
“While Macias raised other issues concerning the indictment relating to furnishing harmful items to a minor, he did not argue that the indictment failed to give him notice of the definitions in A.R.S. § 13-3501. See id. at *5, ¶ 22. ¶33 Macias now claims that trial and appellate…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3501(1)(a) — 2 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3501(10) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3501(2) — 7 cases
State Ex Rel. Collins v. Superior Court, 787 P.2d 1042 (Ariz. 1986).
“01, as amended in 1974 and later renumbered as A.R.S. § 13-3501, was drawn with an eye toward the rule enunciated in Miller.”
State v. Feld, 745 P.2d 146 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
“We therefore strive to interpret the questioned statutes to effect that intent, to the extent that is constitutionally permissible. 1. Standing Initially, we must determine whether defendants have standing to challenge the constitutionality of RICO as applied to obscenity…”
State v. Kamin, 725 P.2d 1104 (Ariz. 1986).
“§ 13-3502 without evidence, other than the allegedly obscene object itself, of the elements required by that statute and A.R.S. § 13-3501. State v. Superior Court, Ariz.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3501(2)(a) — 3 cases
State Ex Rel. Collins v. Superior Court, 787 P.2d 1042 (Ariz. 1986).
“01, as amended in 1974 and later renumbered as A.R.S. § 13-3501, was drawn with an eye toward the rule enunciated in Miller.”
State v. Kamin, 725 P.2d 1104 (Ariz. 1986).
“§ 13-3502 without evidence, other than the allegedly obscene object itself, of the elements required by that statute and A.R.S. § 13-3501. State v. Superior Court, Ariz.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3501(3) — 1 case
State v. Limpus, 625 P.2d 960 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981).
“The definitional section of A.R.S. § 13-3501 with which we are concerned here is A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3501(3)(a) — 1 case
State v. Hummer, 911 P.2d 609 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
“1989), in which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the definition of “knowledge of the character” found in A.R.S. § 13-3501(3)(a). The Ripplinger court said that the definition “may allow conviction of one who knows (or should know) that material contains limited…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3501(4) — 3 cases
Byrd v. Maricopa Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 629 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir. 2011).
“, Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 13-3501(4) (defining "nudity" as "the showing of the human male or female genitals, pubic area or buttocks with less than a full opaque covering .”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3501(4)(a) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3501(5) — 1 case
State v. Limpus, 625 P.2d 960 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981).
“The definitional section of A.R.S. § 13-3501 with which we are concerned here is A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3501(7) — 2 cases
State v. Yegan, 221 P.3d 1027 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
“2009), 8 which defines “sexual conduct” for offenses related to sexual exploitation of children, the court instructed the jury under A.R.S. § 13-3501(7) (2001), which defines “sexual conduct” for crimes related to obscenity.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3501(8) — 1 case
State v. Limpus, 625 P.2d 960 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981).
“The definitional section of A.R.S. § 13-3501 with which we are concerned here is A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3501(l)(a) — 1 case
State v. Hummer, 911 P.2d 609 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
“1989), in which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the definition of “knowledge of the character” found in A.R.S. § 13-3501(3)(a). The Ripplinger court said that the definition “may allow conviction of one who knows (or should know) that material contains limited…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3501(l)(a)(i) — 2 cases
State v. Hummer, 911 P.2d 609 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
“1989), in which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the definition of “knowledge of the character” found in A.R.S. § 13-3501(3)(a). The Ripplinger court said that the definition “may allow conviction of one who knows (or should know) that material contains limited…”
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.