State of Arizona v. Darrel Scott Francis, 410 P.3d 416

Darrel Scott Francis was booked into the Navajo County jail; officers confiscated his personal property, including a cellphone, during booking and transfer.
Francis used a cellphone to give an attorney’s number while in the jail annex; officers later seized a cellphone when he was transferred to the main jail.
The State charged Francis under A.R.S. § 13-2505(A)(1) and (A)(3) for knowingly taking/possessing contraband (a wireless communication device) in a correctional facility or during transport.
At trial the court instructed that the State need not prove Francis knew the cellphone was “contraband”; a jury convicted and the superior court sentenced him to concurrent five-year terms.
The court of appeals reversed, applying A.R.S. § 13-202(A) to require proof Francis knew the cellphone was contraband; the Arizona Supreme Court granted review.
The Arizona Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals, holding the State need only prove the defendant knowingly possessed the item defined as contraband, not that he knew its legal contraband status.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State must prove the defendant knew an item was "contraband" to convict under A.R.S. § 13-2505(A)	State: "Knowingly" possession of an item listed as contraband requires only proof the defendant knowingly possessed that item	Francis: The State must prove he knew the cellphone was contraband (court of appeals view citing § 13-202(A))	The Court held the State need only prove the defendant knowingly possessed the statutorily defined item; knowledge of its unlawfulness is not required

McFadden v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2298 (2015) (knowledge of a substance’s defining features can satisfy a statute’s "knowingly" requirement without knowledge of statutory label)
Posters ‘N’ Things, Ltd. v. United States, 511 U.S. 513 (1994) (government need not prove defendant knew the statutory label for items to be actionable)
Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87 (1974) (requiring knowledge of legal status would permit defendants to evade liability by ignorance)
State v. Bloomer, 156 Ariz. 276 (App. 1987) (discussed; court concluded defendant knowingly possessed contraband when he believed the item was a listed contraband item, but the Supreme Court limited Bloomer’s reasoning)
State v. Francis, 241 Ariz. 449 (App. 2017) (court of appeals decision reversed and vacated by the Arizona Supreme Court)