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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3556 (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 a prosecution relating to the sexual exploitation of children, the trier of fact may draw the inference that a participant is a minor if the visual depiction or live act through its title, text or visual representation depicts the participant as a minor.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1993–2022 · 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 7× “§ 13-3553, without proof that actual minors needed to be involved, based on A.R.S. § 13-3556. This statute, which provides for “permissible inferences” in prosecutions relating to the sexual exploitation of children, states: In a prosecution relating to the sexual exploitation…”
Reno v. Am. Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997). · cites it 2× “300 (1996) (no minors in "adult entertainment" places); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-3556 (1989) (no minors in places where people expose themselves); Ark.”
State v. Sandoval, 857 P.2d 395 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). “section 13-3556 makes it unlawful for “an owner, operator or employer to admit a person under the age of eighteen into any business establishment where persons, in the course of their employment expose their genitals or anus or the areola or nipple of the female breast.”
State of Arizona v. Brian Matthew MacHardy, 521 P.3d 613 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 9× “at 241 (federal statute’s provision unconstitutionally overbroad when it impermissibly punished creation of, for example, “movies, filmed without any child actors, if a jury believes an actor ‘appears to be’ a minor engaging 4In a footnote, Hazlett also concluded A.R.S. §…”
Bauer 297583 v. Shinn (D. Ariz. 2020). · cites it 2× “A portion of the 21 instruction closely tracks the language of A.R.S. § 13-3556, which the Arizona Court of 22 Appeals has held to be unconstitutionally overbroad.”
Taylor v. Shinn (D. Ariz. 2021). · cites it 2× “) 5 Petitioner appealed, asserting that “the trial court erred by denying his request to 6 represent himself, that his indictment was ‘void’ because it did not identify the victims, 7 and that the jury instruction given pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-3556 was unconstitutionally 8…”
State v. Hon ainley/head (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “3d at 1264 (citing A.R.S. § 13-3556 (2010)). Since the statutes at issue in Hazlett have no counterpart to A.”
Bauer 297583 v. Shinn (D. Ariz. 2020). “§ 13-3556, from which the language in the instruction was taken.”
State of Tennessee v. Richard Allen Butler & State of Tennessee v. Re'Licka DaJuan Allen (Tenn. Crim. App. 2005). “10 (quoting Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3556 ). The Hazlett court, therefore, upheld the constitutionality of section 13-3553 while ruling section 13-3556 unconstitutional.”
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.