A. The court or jury shall determine beyond a reasonable doubt if the person named in the petition is a sexually violent person. If the state alleges that the sexually violent offense on which the petition for commitment is based was sexually motivated, the state shall prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged sexually violent act was sexually motivated.
B. If the court or jury determines that the person is a sexually violent person, the court shall either:
1. Commit the person to the custody of the department of health services for placement in a licensed facility under the supervision of the superintendent of the Arizona state hospital and shall receive care, supervision or treatment until the person's mental disorder has so changed that the person would not be a threat to public safety if the person was conditionally released to a less restrictive alternative or was unconditionally discharged.
2. Order that the person be released to a less restrictive alternative if the conditions under sections 36-3710 and 36-3711 are met.
C. If the court or jury does not determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is a sexually violent person, the court shall order the person's release.
D. If the person named in the petition was found incompetent to stand trial, the court first shall hear evidence and determine if the person committed the act or acts charged if the court did not enter a finding before the charges were dismissed. The court shall enter specific findings on whether the person committed the act or acts charged, the extent to which the person's incompetence to stand trial affected the outcome of the hearing, including its effect on the person's ability to consult with and assist counsel and to testify on the person's own behalf, the extent to which the evidence could be reconstructed without the assistance of the person and the strength of the prosecution's case. If the court finds beyond a reasonable doubt that the person committed the act or acts charged, the court shall enter a final order to that effect and may then consider whether the person should be committed pursuant to this section.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
27
cases (
4 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 31× “A.R.S. § 36-3707. We thus reject Petitioners' claims that the Act is unconstitutionally vague.”
State v. Hoggatt, 18 P.3d 1239 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 5× “If a court or jury so finds beyond a reasonable doubt, A.R.S. § 36-3707(A), they must be committed to the custody of DHS and placed in a “licensed facility,” or conditionally released to a “less restrictive alternative.”
In Re Leon G., 59 P.3d 779 (Ariz. 2002).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 36-3707. If the trier of fact finds, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the person is an SVP, then the court must either "[c]ommit the SVP to the custody of the department of health services for placement in a licensed facility" or "[o]rder that the [SVP] be released to a…”
In Re Thomas R., 233 P.3d 1158 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 7× “See A.R.S. § 36-3707(A) (2009); Jaramillo, 217 Ariz.”
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Fields, 35 P.3d 82 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
“§ 36-3707(A). To meet the § 36-3701(7) requirement, the state routinely selects a psychologist or psychiatrist to evaluate the person.”
In Re the Commitment of Taylor, 78 P.3d 1076 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 5× “A parallel provision, subsection (D) of § 36-3707, pertains to those allegedly sexually violent persons found incompetent to stand trial on the criminal offense with which they were charged.”
Walter v. Wilkinson, 10 P.3d 1218 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “2d at 785 ; A.R.S. § 36-3707(A) (Supp.1999-2000). To guard against the risk of an erroneous detention, see Martin, 195 Ariz.”
In Re Commitment of Frankovitch, 121 P.3d 1240 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 36-3707(B)(l). This court affirmed the jury’s verdict and the commitment order on appeal.”
In Re the Commitment of Robert Flemming, 131 P.3d 478 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 4× “Short of the complete discharge contemplated by §§ 36-3704(D) and 36-3714(A) and (C), we can conceive of no reason why the state should be required to duplicate its efforts and repeat the procedure by which Flemming has already been adjudicated a sexually violent person pursuant…”
State v. Farnsworth, 75 A.D.3d 14 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010).
“Ariz Rev Stat Ann § 36-3707 [A]; Fla Stat Ann § 394.”
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Superior Court, 7 P.3d 970 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “Because the Arizona legislature did not impose such a requirement, a jury deciding a civil-commitment case brought under the Act shall consist of eight persons in which the concurrence of six or more jurors shall be sufficient to render a verdict.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-3707(13) — 1 case
In Re the Commitment of Robert Flemming, 131 P.3d 478 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
“Short of the complete discharge contemplated by §§ 36-3704(D) and 36-3714(A) and (C), we can conceive of no reason why the state should be required to duplicate its efforts and repeat the procedure by which Flemming has already been adjudicated a sexually violent person pursuant…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-3707(A) — 12 cases
Martin v. Reinstein, 987 P.2d 779 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
“A.R.S. § 36-3707. We thus reject Petitioners' claims that the Act is unconstitutionally vague.”
State v. Hoggatt, 18 P.3d 1239 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
“If a court or jury so finds beyond a reasonable doubt, A.R.S. § 36-3707(A), they must be committed to the custody of DHS and placed in a “licensed facility,” or conditionally released to a “less restrictive alternative.”
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Fields, 35 P.3d 82 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
“§ 36-3707(A). To meet the § 36-3701(7) requirement, the state routinely selects a psychologist or psychiatrist to evaluate the person.”
Walter v. Wilkinson, 10 P.3d 1218 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).
“2d at 785 ; A.R.S. § 36-3707(A) (Supp.1999-2000). To guard against the risk of an erroneous detention, see Martin, 195 Ariz.”
In Re Thomas R., 233 P.3d 1158 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
“See A.R.S. § 36-3707(A) (2009); Jaramillo, 217 Ariz.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-3707(B) — 4 cases
Martin v. Reinstein, 987 P.2d 779 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
“A.R.S. § 36-3707. We thus reject Petitioners' claims that the Act is unconstitutionally vague.”
State v. Hoggatt, 18 P.3d 1239 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
“If a court or jury so finds beyond a reasonable doubt, A.R.S. § 36-3707(A), they must be committed to the custody of DHS and placed in a “licensed facility,” or conditionally released to a “less restrictive alternative.”
In Re the Commitment of Robert Flemming, 131 P.3d 478 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
“Short of the complete discharge contemplated by §§ 36-3704(D) and 36-3714(A) and (C), we can conceive of no reason why the state should be required to duplicate its efforts and repeat the procedure by which Flemming has already been adjudicated a sexually violent person pursuant…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-3707(B)(1) — 7 cases
Martin v. Reinstein, 987 P.2d 779 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
“A.R.S. § 36-3707. We thus reject Petitioners' claims that the Act is unconstitutionally vague.”
In Re Thomas R., 233 P.3d 1158 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
“See A.R.S. § 36-3707(A) (2009); Jaramillo, 217 Ariz.”
In Re the Commitment of Robert Flemming, 131 P.3d 478 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
“Short of the complete discharge contemplated by §§ 36-3704(D) and 36-3714(A) and (C), we can conceive of no reason why the state should be required to duplicate its efforts and repeat the procedure by which Flemming has already been adjudicated a sexually violent person pursuant…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-3707(B)(2) — 2 cases
Martin v. Reinstein, 987 P.2d 779 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
“A.R.S. § 36-3707. We thus reject Petitioners' claims that the Act is unconstitutionally vague.”
State v. Hoggatt, 18 P.3d 1239 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
“If a court or jury so finds beyond a reasonable doubt, A.R.S. § 36-3707(A), they must be committed to the custody of DHS and placed in a “licensed facility,” or conditionally released to a “less restrictive alternative.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-3707(B)(l) — 3 cases
Martin v. Reinstein, 987 P.2d 779 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
“A.R.S. § 36-3707. We thus reject Petitioners' claims that the Act is unconstitutionally vague.”
In Re Commitment of Frankovitch, 121 P.3d 1240 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
“A.R.S. § 36-3707(B)(l). This court affirmed the jury’s verdict and the commitment order on appeal.”
State v. Hoggatt, 18 P.3d 1239 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
“If a court or jury so finds beyond a reasonable doubt, A.R.S. § 36-3707(A), they must be committed to the custody of DHS and placed in a “licensed facility,” or conditionally released to a “less restrictive alternative.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-3707(C) — 1 case
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.