State of Arizona v. Lynn Lavern Burbey, 381 P.3d 290

Appellant Lynn Lavern Burbey, a registered sex offender, left a halfway house and became homeless but did not notify the Pima County Sheriff within 72 hours as required by A.R.S. § 13-3822(A).
At initial registration Burbey received written and verbal notice of ongoing reporting duties, including the 72-hour requirement and the 90-day transient reporting rule.
Police contacted Burbey twice; he admitted being homeless and acknowledged he had not reported the change of residence.
Burbey was indicted and convicted by a jury for failing to notify a change of address (class 4 felony) and sentenced to a mitigated seven-year prison term.
On appeal Burbey argued (1) the jury instruction misstated the law by imposing a 72-hour reporting duty on homeless registrants who he contended only needed to register every 90 days, and (2) the failure to instruct the jury on mens rea deprived him of due process.

Issue	Burbey's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether a registrant who becomes homeless must notify the sheriff within 72 hours of moving from a registered address, or only register as a transient every 90 days	§ 13-3822(A) requires only transient registration every 90 days when homeless; the 72-hour rule should not apply after becoming homeless	The statute requires prompt notice of any move from a registered residence within 72 hours, and the 90-day transient rule is an additional obligation, not a substitute	The court held the 72-hour notice applies to all registrants who move from a registered address (including when they become homeless); the 90-day transient rule is a separate, additional requirement
Whether omission of a mens rea instruction (knowledge/intent) in charging/final instructions was fundamental error	The absence of a culpable mental state element converts the offense into strict liability and violates due process; conviction should be vacated	Legislature provided no mens rea in § 13-3822; for ongoing registration duties the initial registration process gives notice, and here the record shows Burbey had actual knowledge, so no prejudice	The court declined to resolve the constitutional question broadly but held there was no fundamental error because Burbey had actual notice and could not show prejudice from any omitted mens rea instruction

Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225 (1957) (failure-to-register convictions may implicate due process when the defendant lacks notice of the duty)
State v. Garcia, 156 Ariz. 381 (App. 1987) (reversed failure-to-register conviction where record lacked evidence of actual knowledge of registration duty)
State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561 (2005) (standard for fundamental error and harmless error review of jury instructions)
Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (omitted element in jury instruction reviewed for harmless error)
State v. Noble, 171 Ariz. 171 (1992) (legislative purpose of Arizona sex-offender registration statutes is facilitating location of offenders)