Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 36
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-3706 (2026)

Trial

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

Within one hundred twenty days after a petition is filed pursuant to section 36-3704, the court shall conduct a trial to determine if the person named in the petition is a sexually violent person. The county attorney, attorney general or person named in the petition may request a jury trial. If no request is made, the trial shall be before the court. The judge may continue the trial at the request of either party on a showing of good cause or on its own motion if the person will not be substantially prejudiced.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases, 2000–2017 · leading case: Ugalde v. Burke, 65 P.3d 103 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ugalde v. Burke, 65 P.3d 103 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 14× “ANALYSIS ¶ 6 This matter turns on the construction and application of A.R.S. § 36-3706, which states: Within one hundred twenty days after a petition is filed pursuant to § 36-3704, the court shall conduct a trial to determine if the person named in the petition is a sexually…”
Steven Lane Fuller v. State of Arizona, 314 P.3d 814 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 15× “Specifically, he maintains that his rights under Arizona statutes and the Due Process Clauses of the Arizona and United States Constitutions have been violated because he did not receive a trial within 120 days of the state’s filing of the petition, as required by A.R.S. §…”
State v. Cofield, 107 P.3d 930 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 4× “Cofield was detained beyond the 120-day limit set forth in A.R.S. § 36-3706 (2003). Cf. Ugalde v. Burke, 204 Ariz.”
In Re Leon G., 59 P.3d 779 (Ariz. 2002). · cites it 2× “[5] A.R.S. § 36-3706. Either party may request a trial by jury.”
State v. Hoggatt, 18 P.3d 1239 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “A trial pursuant to § 36-3706. 3. A hearing on a petition for conditional release to a less restrictive alternative pursuant to § 36-3709.”
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Superior Court, 7 P.3d 970 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “section 21-102(C). Clements responded with two contentions: The first was that, because he faced 30 or more years in custody, a 12-person jury was required.”
State of Arizona v. Hon. Ehrlich/eric Walker, 59 P.3d 779 (Ariz. 2002). · cites it 2× “5 A.R.S. § 36-3706. Either party may request a trial by jury.”
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Gaines, 67 P.3d 734 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). “”) section 36-3706 (2003), precluding the State from introducing admissions made by Armando Reyes and Patricio Duenez (“Defendants”).”
In Re Thomas R., 233 P.3d 1158 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 36-3706 (2009). The State bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt whether the person meets the statutory definition of an SVP.”
In Re the Commitment of Taylor, 78 P.3d 1076 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). “¶ 19 In remanding the case for trial pursuant to §§ 36-3706 and 36-3707, we note that the record on appeal contains documents and information that the record previously before us on Taylor’s petition for special action did not.”
State v. Ehrlich, 26 P.3d 481 (Ariz. 2001). · cites it 2× “5 A.R.S. § 36-3706. Either party may request a trial by jury.”
In Re Leon G., 26 P.3d 481 (Ariz. 2001). · cites it 2× “[5] A.R.S. § 36-3706. Either party may request a trial by jury.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
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.