State of Arizona, Appellee v. Jerry Charles Holle, Appellant

Summary

The court held that lack of sexual motivation under A.R.S. § 13-1407(E) is an affirmative defense to sexual abuse and child molestation, not an element the State must prove. Because the statutes defining those offenses require intentional or knowing sexual contact but do not require sexual motivation, the defendant bears the burden of proving the defense by a preponderance of the evidence, and that allocation does not violate due process. The court therefore vacated the court of appeals' opinion and affirmed Holle's convictions and sentences. Bales, C.J., joined by Brutinel, J., concurred in the result but would have construed sexual motivation as an implied element and dissented from the majority's contrary holding.