State of Arizona, Appellee v. Jerry Charles Holle, Appellant — Bales, J., Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part

Summary

Bales, C.J., joined by Brutinel, J., dissented from the majority’s interpretation of Arizona’s child-sexual-contact statutes, arguing that the statutes should be construed to require the State to prove sexual motivation rather than treating lack of sexual motivation as an affirmative defense. He reasoned that the majority’s literal interpretation creates vagueness and unconstitutional burden-shifting problems, although he agreed that the erroneous jury instruction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore concurred in affirming the convictions and sentences. Bales, C.J., dissenting in part and concurring in the result, would have adopted the court of appeals’ interpretation requiring proof of sexual motivation.