{"id":2146,"date":"2020-05-15T14:28:30","date_gmt":"2020-05-15T19:28:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=2146"},"modified":"2020-05-31T15:26:41","modified_gmt":"2020-05-31T20:26:41","slug":"state-v-trujillo-ariz-2020","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2020\/05\/15\/state-v-trujillo-ariz-2020\/","title":{"rendered":"State v. Trujillo (Ariz. 2020)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

State v. Trujillo, No. CR-18-0531-PR (Ariz. 2020)<\/h2>\n

Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong> Appellant was convicted after a jury trial of a sex offense. The particular offense Appellant was convicted of required registration if the victim was under the age of eighteen, but the jury did not make a finding as to the age of the victim. Appellant claimed, therefore, that the application of sex offense registration in his case violated Apprendi v. New Jersey<\/i>. The trial court rejected Appellant’s argument, and the Arizona Court of Appeals reversed the trial court. The Arizona Supreme Court thereafter accepted review.<\/p>\n

Holding: <\/strong> The Arizona Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals opinion. Using an Ex Post Facto analysis, held that Arizona’s sex offense registration statute was non-punitive, and thus that Apprendi<\/i> was not implicated.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Case Documents<\/em><\/h2>\n