In this article, unless the context otherwise requires:
1. "Agency" means any agency that is authorized to direct the release of a person who is serving a sentence or term of confinement or who is receiving treatment, including a state or federal prison, a county jail and the Arizona state hospital or other mental health treatment agency.
2. "Competent professional" means a person who is:
(a) Familiar with the state's sexually violent persons statutes and sexual offender treatment programs available in this state.
(b) Approved by the superior court as meeting court approved guidelines.
3. "Conviction" includes a finding of guilt at any time for a sexually violent offense or an order of the juvenile court adjudicating the person delinquent for any sexually violent offense.
4. "Less restrictive alternative" means court ordered treatment in a setting that is less restrictive than total confinement and that is conducted in a setting approved by the superintendent of the state hospital.
5. "Mental disorder" means a paraphilia, personality disorder or conduct disorder or any combination of paraphilia, personality disorder and conduct disorder that predisposes a person to commit sexual acts to such a degree as to render the person a danger to the health and safety of others.
6. "Sexually violent offense" means any of the following:
(a) Indecent exposure to a person who is under fifteen years of age pursuant to section 13-1402, public sexual indecency to a minor pursuant to section 13-1403, sexual conduct with a minor pursuant to section 13-1405, sexual assault pursuant to section 13-1406, molestation of a child pursuant to section 13-1410, continuous sexual abuse of a child pursuant to section 13-1417 or sexual assault of a spouse if the offense was committed before August 12, 2005.
(b) Second degree murder pursuant to section 13-1104, first degree murder pursuant to section 13-1105, assault pursuant to section 13-1203, aggravated assault pursuant to section 13-1204, unlawful imprisonment pursuant to section 13-1303, kidnapping pursuant to section 13-1304 or burglary in the first degree pursuant to section 13-1508 if the court at the time of sentencing or civil commitment proceedings determines beyond a reasonable doubt that the act was sexually motivated pursuant to section 13-118.
(c) An attempt, a solicitation, a facilitation or a conspiracy to commit an offense listed in subdivision (a) or (b) of this paragraph.
(d) An act committed in another jurisdiction that if committed in this state would be a sexually violent offense listed in subdivision (a), (b) or (c) of this paragraph.
(e) A conviction for a felony offense that was in effect before September 1, 1978 and that if committed on or after September 1, 1978 would be comparable to a sexually violent offense listed in subdivision (a) or (b) of this paragraph.
7. "Sexually violent person" means a person to whom both of the following apply:
(a) Has ever been convicted of or found guilty but insane of a sexually violent offense or was charged with a sexually violent offense and was determined incompetent to stand trial.
(b) Has a mental disorder that makes the person likely to engage in acts of sexual violence.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
60
cases (
7 in the last 5 years), 1999–2026 · leading case:
Martin v. Reinstein, 987 P.2d 779 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
Martin v. Reinstein, 987 P.2d 779 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 54× “dition to the statement of legislative intent, several factors demonstrate the Act's civil nature: (1) the legislature's focus on treatment of SVPs and protection of the public, (2) the decisions to apply the rules of civil procedure to the proceedings and to apply procedural…”
In Re the Det. of Wilber W., 53 P.3d 1145 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 34× “”) §§ 36-3701 through — 3717 (Supp.2001). Originally, Wil-ber raised several evidentiary issues on appeal.”
Anthony Garcia v. Hon. butler/state, 487 P.3d 256 (Ariz. 2021).
· cites it 9× “See A.R.S. §§ 36-3701, -3707. In this Opinion, we address whether a trial court has discretion to deny an SVP screening when the state requests one under A.”
Arizona State Hosp. v. Klein, 296 P.3d 1003 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 11× “” ¶ 7 In opposing Charles’s request, the Center argued that under the SVPA, a witness need only qualify as a “competent professional” pursuant to A.R.S. § 36-3701(2) to testify at a discharge hearing.”
In Re the Commitment of Taylor, 78 P.3d 1076 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 29× “¶ 1 The state appeals from the trial court’s order of December 24, 2002, dismissing civil commitment proceedings brought against Olin Gene Taylor pursuant to Arizona’s Sexually Violent Persons (SVP) Act, A.R.S. §§ 36-3701 through 36-3717, and ordering his immediate release from…”
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Fields, 35 P.3d 82 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 5× “”) §§ 36-3701 to -3717 (Supp.2000). We conclude that the admissibility of the actuarial data and the expert opinion relying on such data is controlled by the Arizona Rules of Evidence and not Frye.”
Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (2008).
· cites it 2× “See Ariz.Rev.Stat. §§ 36-3701 to 36-3713 (West 2003 and Supp.”
In Re Leon G., 59 P.3d 779 (Ariz. 2002).
· cites it 3× “A.R.S. §§ 36-3701 to 36-3717. [5] If the person named in the complaint was found incompetent to stand trial on the sexual offense charges, the court must determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the person committed the charged offense before turning to the question whether…”
Rineer v. Leonardo, 977 P.2d 767 (Ariz. 1999).
· cites it 4× “See A.R.S. §§ 36-3701 through 36-3716. We cannot presume that this continuing omission is merely an oversight.”
In Re the Commitment of Jaramillo, 176 P.3d 28 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 6× “¶ 1 After a jury trial, appellant Wilfredo Jaramillo was found to be a sexually violent person and was committed to the Arizona Community Protection and Treatment Center pursuant to Arizona’s Sexually Violent Persons (SVP) Act, A.R.S. §§ 36-3701 through 36-3717. On appeal,…”
In Re Commitment of Frankovitch, 121 P.3d 1240 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 5× “¶ 2 After a jury trial in 1999, Frankovitch was found to be an SVP as defined in A.R.S. § 36-3701(7). He was committed to the custody of the Department of Health Services to be placed in a licensed facility under the supervision of the superintendent of the Arizona State…”
United States v. Comstock, 560 U.S. 126 (2010).
“5 (2008) (Auto, X, dissenting) (collecting statutes), and, most relevant here, 22 States have enacted involuntary civil-commitment laws substantially similar to §4248, see Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 36-3701 et seq. (West 2009); Cal.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-3701(2) — 5 cases
Arizona State Hosp. v. Klein, 296 P.3d 1003 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).
“” ¶ 7 In opposing Charles’s request, the Center argued that under the SVPA, a witness need only qualify as a “competent professional” pursuant to A.R.S. § 36-3701(2) to testify at a discharge hearing.”
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Fields, 35 P.3d 82 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
“”) §§ 36-3701 to -3717 (Supp.2000). We conclude that the admissibility of the actuarial data and the expert opinion relying on such data is controlled by the Arizona Rules of Evidence and not Frye.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-3701(3) — 1 case
Martin v. Reinstein, 987 P.2d 779 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
“dition to the statement of legislative intent, several factors demonstrate the Act's civil nature: (1) the legislature's focus on treatment of SVPs and protection of the public, (2) the decisions to apply the rules of civil procedure to the proceedings and to apply procedural…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-3701(5) — 7 cases
Martin v. Reinstein, 987 P.2d 779 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
“dition to the statement of legislative intent, several factors demonstrate the Act's civil nature: (1) the legislature's focus on treatment of SVPs and protection of the public, (2) the decisions to apply the rules of civil procedure to the proceedings and to apply procedural…”
In Re the Det. of Wilber W., 53 P.3d 1145 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
“”) §§ 36-3701 through — 3717 (Supp.2001). Originally, Wil-ber raised several evidentiary issues on appeal.”
Anthony Garcia v. Hon. butler/state, 487 P.3d 256 (Ariz. 2021).
“See A.R.S. §§ 36-3701, -3707. In this Opinion, we address whether a trial court has discretion to deny an SVP screening when the state requests one under A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-3701(6) — 6 cases
Martin v. Reinstein, 987 P.2d 779 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
“dition to the statement of legislative intent, several factors demonstrate the Act's civil nature: (1) the legislature's focus on treatment of SVPs and protection of the public, (2) the decisions to apply the rules of civil procedure to the proceedings and to apply procedural…”
In Re the Det. of Wilber W., 53 P.3d 1145 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
“”) §§ 36-3701 through — 3717 (Supp.2001). Originally, Wil-ber raised several evidentiary issues on appeal.”
In Re the Commitment of Taylor, 78 P.3d 1076 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
“¶ 1 The state appeals from the trial court’s order of December 24, 2002, dismissing civil commitment proceedings brought against Olin Gene Taylor pursuant to Arizona’s Sexually Violent Persons (SVP) Act, A.R.S. §§ 36-3701 through 36-3717, and ordering his immediate release from…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-3701(6)(a) — 4 cases
In Re the Det. of Wilber W., 53 P.3d 1145 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
“”) §§ 36-3701 through — 3717 (Supp.2001). Originally, Wil-ber raised several evidentiary issues on appeal.”
In Re the Commitment of Taylor, 78 P.3d 1076 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
“¶ 1 The state appeals from the trial court’s order of December 24, 2002, dismissing civil commitment proceedings brought against Olin Gene Taylor pursuant to Arizona’s Sexually Violent Persons (SVP) Act, A.R.S. §§ 36-3701 through 36-3717, and ordering his immediate release from…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-3701(6)(b) — 3 cases
In Re the Commitment of Taylor, 78 P.3d 1076 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
“¶ 1 The state appeals from the trial court’s order of December 24, 2002, dismissing civil commitment proceedings brought against Olin Gene Taylor pursuant to Arizona’s Sexually Violent Persons (SVP) Act, A.R.S. §§ 36-3701 through 36-3717, and ordering his immediate release from…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-3701(6)(c) — 2 cases
In Re the Commitment of Taylor, 78 P.3d 1076 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
“¶ 1 The state appeals from the trial court’s order of December 24, 2002, dismissing civil commitment proceedings brought against Olin Gene Taylor pursuant to Arizona’s Sexually Violent Persons (SVP) Act, A.R.S. §§ 36-3701 through 36-3717, and ordering his immediate release from…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-3701(6)(d) — 1 case
In Re the Det. of Wilber W., 53 P.3d 1145 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
“”) §§ 36-3701 through — 3717 (Supp.2001). Originally, Wil-ber raised several evidentiary issues on appeal.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-3701(7) — 20 cases
Martin v. Reinstein, 987 P.2d 779 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
“dition to the statement of legislative intent, several factors demonstrate the Act's civil nature: (1) the legislature's focus on treatment of SVPs and protection of the public, (2) the decisions to apply the rules of civil procedure to the proceedings and to apply procedural…”
In Re the Det. of Wilber W., 53 P.3d 1145 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
“”) §§ 36-3701 through — 3717 (Supp.2001). Originally, Wil-ber raised several evidentiary issues on appeal.”
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Fields, 35 P.3d 82 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
“”) §§ 36-3701 to -3717 (Supp.2000). We conclude that the admissibility of the actuarial data and the expert opinion relying on such data is controlled by the Arizona Rules of Evidence and not Frye.”
In Re Commitment of Frankovitch, 121 P.3d 1240 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
“¶ 2 After a jury trial in 1999, Frankovitch was found to be an SVP as defined in A.R.S. § 36-3701(7). He was committed to the custody of the Department of Health Services to be placed in a licensed facility under the supervision of the superintendent of the Arizona State…”
Anthony Garcia v. Hon. butler/state, 487 P.3d 256 (Ariz. 2021).
“See A.R.S. §§ 36-3701, -3707. In this Opinion, we address whether a trial court has discretion to deny an SVP screening when the state requests one under A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-3701(7)(a) — 8 cases
Martin v. Reinstein, 987 P.2d 779 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
“dition to the statement of legislative intent, several factors demonstrate the Act's civil nature: (1) the legislature's focus on treatment of SVPs and protection of the public, (2) the decisions to apply the rules of civil procedure to the proceedings and to apply procedural…”
In Re the Det. of Wilber W., 53 P.3d 1145 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
“”) §§ 36-3701 through — 3717 (Supp.2001). Originally, Wil-ber raised several evidentiary issues on appeal.”
In Re the Commitment of Taylor, 78 P.3d 1076 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
“¶ 1 The state appeals from the trial court’s order of December 24, 2002, dismissing civil commitment proceedings brought against Olin Gene Taylor pursuant to Arizona’s Sexually Violent Persons (SVP) Act, A.R.S. §§ 36-3701 through 36-3717, and ordering his immediate release from…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-3701(7)(b) — 9 cases
Martin v. Reinstein, 987 P.2d 779 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
“dition to the statement of legislative intent, several factors demonstrate the Act's civil nature: (1) the legislature's focus on treatment of SVPs and protection of the public, (2) the decisions to apply the rules of civil procedure to the proceedings and to apply procedural…”
In Re the Det. of Wilber W., 53 P.3d 1145 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
“”) §§ 36-3701 through — 3717 (Supp.2001). Originally, Wil-ber raised several evidentiary issues on appeal.”
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.