388 P.3d 843
Ariz. Ct. App.2017Background
- Francis was detained at a jail annex; officers seized his personal property, including a cell phone, which they stored in a property bag.
- Francis used the phone (officers retrieved and activated it to get his attorney’s number); later he was transported to Navajo County Jail where an officer observed and confiscated the phone.
- He was charged with two counts of promoting prison contraband for possessing a cell phone while confined or while transported incident to confinement (A.R.S. § 13-2505(A)(3)).
- Before trial, the State argued it need not prove Francis knew the phone was contraband; the court agreed and precluded defense argument and other-acts evidence on that theory.
- Jury instructions used the word “knowingly” but did not require proof Francis knew the item was contraband; the jury convicted on both counts and Francis appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State must prove the defendant knew the item was "contraband" under § 13-2505(A)(3) | Francis: Bloomer and statutory construction require proof defendant knew the possessed item was contraband | State: "Knowingly" applies to possession act only; no proof of knowledge of unlawfulness required under § 13-105(10)(b) | Reversed: Under A.R.S. § 13-202(A), the single culpable mental state "knowingly" applies to each element, including that the item is contraband; State must prove defendant knew the item was contraband |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bloomer, 156 Ariz. 276 (App. 1987) (possession-of-contraband conviction requires proof defendant knowingly possessed contraband)
- State v. Falcone, 228 Ariz. 168 (App. 2011) (statutory context can show contrary legislative purpose to mens rea application)
- State v. Witwer, 175 Ariz. 305 (App. 1993) (single mens rea applies to knowledge of lack of consent under § 13-202(A))
- State v. Rivera, 226 Ariz. 325 (App. 2011) (if statute prescribes one mental state, it applies to every element absent contrary intent)
- People v. Romero, 55 Cal.App.4th 147 (1997) (possession of a controlled substance requires proof defendant knew it was a controlled substance; specific knowledge of chemical composition unnecessary)