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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3553 (2026)

Sexual exploitation of a minor; evidence; classification; definition

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

13-3553. Sexual exploitation of a minor; evidence; classification; definition

A. A person commits sexual exploitation of a minor by knowingly:

1. Recording, filming, photographing, developing or duplicating any visual depiction in which a minor is engaged in exploitive exhibition or other sexual conduct.

2. Distributing, transporting, exhibiting, receiving, selling, purchasing, electronically transmitting, possessing or exchanging any visual depiction in which a minor is engaged in exploitive exhibition or other sexual conduct.

3. Possessing, manufacturing, distributing, advertising, ordering, offering to sell, selling or purchasing a child sex doll that uses the face, image or likeness of a real infant or minor who is under twelve years of age with the intent to replicate the physical features of that real infant or minor.

4. Observing a nude minor for the purpose of engaging in sexual conduct for the person's sexual gratification. This paragraph does not apply to consensual conduct between minors who are at least fifteen, sixteen or seventeen years of age.

B. If any visual depiction of sexual exploitation of a minor is admitted into evidence, the court shall seal that evidence at the conclusion of any grand jury proceeding, hearing or trial.

C. Sexual exploitation of a minor is a class 2 felony and if the minor is under fifteen years of age it is punishable pursuant to section 13-705.

D. For the purposes of this section, "child sex doll" has the same meaning prescribed in section 13-1429.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 103 cases (23 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: State v. Hazlett, 73 P.3d 1258 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Hazlett, 73 P.3d 1258 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 69× “The trial court dismissed the indictments in each of the four appealed cases, finding that A.R.S. § 13-3553 is unconstitutionally overbroad because it encompasses expression protected by the First Amendment and Ariz.”
State v. Berger, 134 P.3d 378 (Ariz. 2006). · cites it 17× “See A.R.S. §§ 13-3553, -604.01 (Supp.2005). Indeed, the minimum ten-year sentence in Arizona for possession of one image is greater than the maximum sentence for possession of child pornography in thirty-six states and equal to the maximum sentence in nine other states.”
State v. Paredes-solano, 222 P.3d 900 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 13× “It is thus our task to interpret the language of this statute and determine in which class the legislature intended § 13-3553 to fall. See State v. Fell, 209 Ariz.”
State v. Berger, 103 P.3d 298 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 42× “¶ 3 In a trial motion challenging the constitutionality of A.R.S. § 13-3553, Berger contended that the sentencing scheme as applied to him constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 2, section 15 of…”
Cervantes v. Cates, 76 P.3d 449 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 10× “As explained below, A.R.S. § 13-3553 does not extend to use of such material at or in preparing for trial.”
State v. Windsor, 227 P.3d 864 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 16× “¶ 10 Windsor also cites Oregon and Washington statutes similar to § 13-3553(A) and out-of-state cases in which courts upheld the convictions of defendants who had reproduced pornographic images.”
State v. Jensen, 173 P.3d 1046 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 12× “”) section 13-3553(A) (Supp. 2007) by receiving or possessing images of child pornography on a computer.”
State of Arizona v. Steve Frank Mcpherson, 269 P.3d 1181 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 6× “Specifically, § 13-3553 characterizes the possession of child pornography as the crime of “sexual exploitation of a minor” and makes no distinction for the purposes of sentencing between such possession and the direct sexual exploitation of children by coercing them to perform…”
New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982). · cites it 2× “Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-3553 (Supp. 1981-1982); Colo.”
Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103 (1990). · cites it 2× “Code § 13A-12-192 (1988); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-3553 (1989); Colo.”
State of Arizona v. Joseph Lawrence Dixon, 294 P.3d 157 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 17× “¶ 9 Dixon also argues the “legislative purpose behind A.R.S. § 13-3553[is] to protect the children of Arizona from sexual exploitation,” which supports limiting the application of the statute as he has proposed.”
State v. Coghill, 169 P.3d 942 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “9 ADMISSIBILITY OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY VIDEO FILES ¶ 35 Coghill maintains the trial court erred in allowing jurors to watch the child pornography videos found in his residence after he had offered to stipulate that their content fell within the scope of A.R.S. § 13-3553.…”
Show all 103 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3553(0) — 3 cases
State v. Regenold, 255 P.3d 1028 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
State v. Welch, 340 P.3d 387 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
State of Arizona v. Christian Paul Royalty, 336 P.3d 758 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3553(A) — 18 cases
State v. Paredes-solano, 222 P.3d 900 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). “It is thus our task to interpret the language of this statute and determine in which class the legislature intended § 13-3553 to fall. See State v. Fell, 209 Ariz.”
State v. Speers, 98 P.3d 560 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
State v. Hazlett, 73 P.3d 1258 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). “The trial court dismissed the indictments in each of the four appealed cases, finding that A.R.S. § 13-3553 is unconstitutionally overbroad because it encompasses expression protected by the First Amendment and Ariz.”
Cervantes v. Cates, 76 P.3d 449 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). “As explained below, A.R.S. § 13-3553 does not extend to use of such material at or in preparing for trial.”
State of Arizona v. Joseph Lawrence Dixon, 294 P.3d 157 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). “¶ 9 Dixon also argues the “legislative purpose behind A.R.S. § 13-3553[is] to protect the children of Arizona from sexual exploitation,” which supports limiting the application of the statute as he has proposed.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3553(A)(1) — 12 cases
State v. Paredes-solano, 222 P.3d 900 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). “It is thus our task to interpret the language of this statute and determine in which class the legislature intended § 13-3553 to fall. See State v. Fell, 209 Ariz.”
State v. Windsor, 227 P.3d 864 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). “¶ 10 Windsor also cites Oregon and Washington statutes similar to § 13-3553(A) and out-of-state cases in which courts upheld the convictions of defendants who had reproduced pornographic images.”
State v. Taylor, 773 P.2d 974 (Ariz. 1989).
State v. Chandler, 418 P.3d 1109 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).
State v. Gates, 897 P.2d 1345 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3553(A)(2) — 42 cases
State v. Berger, 134 P.3d 378 (Ariz. 2006). “See A.R.S. §§ 13-3553, -604.01 (Supp.2005). Indeed, the minimum ten-year sentence in Arizona for possession of one image is greater than the maximum sentence for possession of child pornography in thirty-six states and equal to the maximum sentence in nine other states.”
State v. Jensen, 173 P.3d 1046 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “”) section 13-3553(A) (Supp. 2007) by receiving or possessing images of child pornography on a computer.”
State of Arizona v. Steve Frank Mcpherson, 269 P.3d 1181 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). “Specifically, § 13-3553 characterizes the possession of child pornography as the crime of “sexual exploitation of a minor” and makes no distinction for the purposes of sentencing between such possession and the direct sexual exploitation of children by coercing them to perform…”
State v. Hazlett, 73 P.3d 1258 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). “The trial court dismissed the indictments in each of the four appealed cases, finding that A.R.S. § 13-3553 is unconstitutionally overbroad because it encompasses expression protected by the First Amendment and Ariz.”
State v. Windsor, 227 P.3d 864 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). “¶ 10 Windsor also cites Oregon and Washington statutes similar to § 13-3553(A) and out-of-state cases in which courts upheld the convictions of defendants who had reproduced pornographic images.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3553(A)(l) — 1 case
Fassler v. Pendleton, 35 F. App'x 442 (9th Cir. 2002).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3553(B) — 1 case
State v. Curtis (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3553(C) — 9 cases
State v. Berger, 134 P.3d 378 (Ariz. 2006). “See A.R.S. §§ 13-3553, -604.01 (Supp.2005). Indeed, the minimum ten-year sentence in Arizona for possession of one image is greater than the maximum sentence for possession of child pornography in thirty-six states and equal to the maximum sentence in nine other states.”
State v. Berger, 103 P.3d 298 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). “¶ 3 In a trial motion challenging the constitutionality of A.R.S. § 13-3553, Berger contended that the sentencing scheme as applied to him constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 2, section 15 of…”
State of Arizona v. Christian Paul Royalty, 336 P.3d 758 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
State v. Maloney (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).
State v. Meyer (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3553(a)(2) — 1 case
Taylor v. Shinn (D. Ariz. 2021).
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.