State v. Falcone, 264 P.3d 878

Falcone was convicted after a jury trial of two counts of sexual conduct with a minor and one count each of attempted sexual conduct, public sexual indecency to a minor under fifteen, and luring a minor for sexual exploitation; the state alleged the attempted conduct and luring were dangerous crimes against children.
Jury Instruction 26 defined 'knowingly' and stated it did not require knowledge of the victim's age; the court added this instruction and the jurors were informed that age knowledge was not required.
During trial, a juror asked whether M. or E. had disclosed ages; the court rejected the question, and the state argued age knowledge was not an element.
Falcone raised ineffective-assistance claims for trial and appellate counsel failing to object to Instruction 26 and to the juror question; the trial court found error as to counts four and five only.
The trial court vacated counts four and five (public sexual indecency to a minor and luring a minor), while counts one–three remained; on review, the court denied relief on counts one–three.
Arizona Court of Appeals held that § 13-1405 and § 13-1407(B) read together do not require knowledge of the victim's age to convict under § 13-1405, and affirmed denial of post-conviction relief on counts one–three.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does knowledge of victim's age belong to an element of § 13-1405?	Falcone argues § 13-202(A) requires age knowledge as an element.	Falcone argues no, per 13-1407(B) defense; age knowledge should be proven.	No error; age knowledge not required for counts 1–3.
Are § 13-1405 and § 13-1407(B) to be read in pari materia?	Falcone contends 13-1407(B) defense cannot foreclose 13-1405 without age knowledge.	State argues they are in pari materia and contemplate a knowledge requirement limited to the act, not age.	Read together, they require no knowledge of age for 13-1405, with 13-1407(B) providing a separate defense.
Did trial or appellate counsel's handling of Instruction 26 prejudice Falcone on counts 1–3?	Falcone asserts ineffective assistance infected counts 1–3.	State argues not prejudicial given the statute and defense limitations.	No abuse of discretion; no prejudice shown for counts 1–3.

State v. Gamez, 227 Ariz. 445 (App. 2011) (read § 13-1405 and 13-1407(B) in pari materia; knowledge not required for 13-1405)
State v. Ortega, 220 Ariz. 320 (App. 2008) (elements of sexual conduct with a minor; supports interpretation of elements)
State v. Superior Court, 104 Ariz. 440 (1969) (good faith belief as to victim's age not a defense under prior law)
State v. Getz, 189 Ariz. 561 (1997) (section 13-1407(B) can apply to prosecutions under § 13-1405)
State v. Sweet, 143 Ariz. 266 (App. 1985) (legislative intent; use of pari materia in statute interpretation)