State v. Holle (Arizona State Supreme Court) -- Amici Curiae Brief of Law Professors in Support of Respondent's motion for reconsideration

15 Pages Posted: 8 Oct 2016

See all articles by Carissa Byrne Hessick

Carissa Byrne Hessick

University of North Carolina School of Law

Date Written: September 29, 2016

Abstract

In State v. Holle, the Supreme Court of Arizona held that the legislature may redefine the crime of child molestation to include the intentional touching of any part of the genitals, anus or female breast of a minor, and it may place the burden to prove that such touching was not the result of a sexual motivation on the defendant. In this brief, law professors explain why this burden shifting raises serious constitutional questions and thus why the Supreme Court should reconsider its previous ruling and construe the statute so that sexual motivation is an element of the crime rather than an affirmative defense.

Keywords: due process, vagueness, element, affirmative defense, Arizona

Suggested Citation

Hessick, Carissa Byrne, State v. Holle (Arizona State Supreme Court) -- Amici Curiae Brief of Law Professors in Support of Respondent's motion for reconsideration (September 29, 2016). UNC Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2848367. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2848367 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2848367

Carissa Byrne Hessick (Contact Author)

University of North Carolina School of Law ( email )

Van Hecke-Wettach Hall, 160 Ridge Road
CB #3380
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3380
United States

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
35
Abstract Views
633
PlumX Metrics