State v. Clow
242 Ariz. 68
Ariz. Ct. App.2017Background
- In August 2014 Paul Clow rented rooms to a single mother and her three young sons; the family moved in August 2. Mother testified she and Clow began a sexual relationship within days, and Clow became involved in caring for the children.
- The victim (J.F., age 7) disclosed in a car conversation on November 9, 2014 that Clow had told him to keep secrets and had taught him about sex; the victim said Clow touched his penis both over and under clothing and that the touching occurred “every day.”
- A forensic interview the next day recorded the victim saying the touching began around August 1 and happened daily; at trial the victim estimated roughly 24 incidents but acknowledged uncertainty about the exact number and dates.
- The State charged Clow with one count of continuous sexual abuse of a child under A.R.S. § 13-1417(A); a jury convicted him and the court imposed a 25-year aggravated sentence.
- On appeal Clow challenged only whether the evidence proved the abuse occurred “over a period of three months or more in duration” as required by § 13-1417(A).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence proved abuse spanned “a period of three months or more” under A.R.S. § 13-1417(A) | The State argued trial evidence (victim and forensic interview, move-in and report dates) supported an abuse period from early August to November 9, 2014. | Clow argued “month” means a full calendar month (one of the twelve divisions) so only full months count; portions of August and November cannot be combined to reach three months. | The court rejected Clow’s strict calendar-month definition, adopting a common-law definition of month as a period from a date in one month to the corresponding date the next. The evidence supported abuse from early August to November 9, satisfying the three-month duration requirement; conviction affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. West, 226 Ariz. 559 (review standard for Rule 20 judgment of acquittal)
- State v. Neese, 239 Ariz. 84 (statutory interpretation de novo)
- State v. Lee, 236 Ariz. 377 (apply clear statutory language as written)
- State v. Dixon, 216 Ariz. 18 (plain and ordinary meaning of statutory terms)
- State v. Mahaney, 193 Ariz. 566 (use dictionaries to determine ordinary meaning)
- State v. Barragan-Sierra, 219 Ariz. 276 (avoid absurd results; read statutes sensibly)
- State v. Payne, 233 Ariz. 484 (view facts in light most favorable to sustain verdict)