State of Arizona v. Bayron Perez Agueda, 513 P.3d 1112

Agueda (then 27) had sexual relations with Maya when she was 14; Maya later gave birth and DNA confirmed Agueda as the father.
State charged Agueda with multiple counts, including sexual conduct with a minor under 15 (Count 5) and related offenses.
At trial Agueda requested a jury instruction that contributing to the delinquency of a minor (A.R.S. § 13-3613) was a lesser-included offense of sexual conduct with a minor (A.R.S. § 13-1405); the trial court denied the request and the jury convicted.
The court of appeals held contributing to delinquency was a lesser-included offense and vacated the conviction on Count 5.
The Arizona Supreme Court granted review, analyzed statutory elements under the Blockburger same-elements test, overruled Sutton, and held contributing to delinquency is not a lesser-included offense of sexual conduct with a minor under 15.
The Court vacated the court of appeals’ decision and remanded for consideration of an unrelated juror-question issue the court of appeals had not addressed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether contributing to the delinquency of a minor (§ 13-3613) is a lesser-included offense of sexual conduct with a minor under 15 (§ 13-1405)	The State argued it is not a lesser-included offense because the offenses have different elements; a child’s act is an element of contributing to delinquency that is not required for sexual conduct	Agueda argued the jury should have been instructed because the court of appeals held contributing to delinquency is necessarily included (relying on Sutton and syllogism through child molestation)	Court held it is not a lesser-included offense under the Blockburger same-elements test; trial court did not err in refusing the instruction
Whether Sutton v. State remains good law on this point	The State argued Sutton misread the statutes and should be overruled	Agueda relied on Sutton and the court of appeals’ reliance on it to support the lesser-included instruction	Court overruled Sutton as clearly erroneous and inconsistent with statutory text and precedent (e.g., Brockmueller); Sutton’s interpretation rendered statutory language superfluous

Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (same-elements test for lesser-included offenses)
State v. Carter, 249 Ariz. 312 (adopting Blockburger for lesser-included analysis)
State v. Agueda, 250 Ariz. 504 (App. 2021) (court of appeals decision vacating Count 5)
Sutton v. State, 104 Ariz. 317 (1969) (trial court instruction case overruled here)
Brockmueller v. State, 86 Ariz. 82 (1959) (interpreting contributing-to-delinquency as prohibition on encouraging a child’s act)
State v. Lua, 237 Ariz. 301 (instruction on lesser-included offense requires evidence support)