Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 44
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-2033 (2026)

Burden of proof of exemptions

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

In any action, civil or criminal, when a defense is based upon any exemption provided for in this chapter, the burden of proving the existence of the exemption shall be upon the party raising the defense, and it shall not be necessary to negative the exemption in any petition, complaint, information or indictment, laid or brought in any proceeding under this chapter.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case: State v. Baumann, 610 P.2d 38 (Ariz. 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Baumann, 610 P.2d 38 (Ariz. 1980). · cites it 2× “We note that A.R.S. § 44-2033 places the burden of proving the existence of an exemption upon the party raising the defense.”
State v. Barber, 653 P.2d 29 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “He further alleges that the state’s failure to present evidence on this issue is also error. To begin our analysis of this issue, we first note that the state is not required to prove that the securities and transactions were not exempted by law.”
People v. Feno, 154 Cal. App. 3d 719 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984). “The Arizona appellate court there stated: "A.R.S. § 44-2033 states that the burden of proving the existence of any exemption provided for in the statutes shall be upon the party raising the defense.”
State v. Tober, 826 P.2d 1199 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 44-2033; State v. Baumann, 125 Ariz.”
Wales v. Acc (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 6× “See A.R.S. § 44-2033. The Commission ordered the Wales to cease and desist offering unregistered securities and ordered them to pay $526,500 in restitution, plus interest and administrative penalties.”
Wales v. Acc (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 44-2033. ¶24 The Waleses argue the transactions were exempt from registration for two reasons.”
Shudak v. Azcc (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 44-2033; see also State v. Baumann, 125 Ariz.”
Sync Title v. Acc (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 44-2033. Although the offering had been directly negotiated with and limited to the Williams, the Commission found the non-public offering exemption did not apply because (1) the Williams were not sophisticated investors and (2) the Williams lacked access to the…”
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.