State v. Ramos-Ramirez, 1 CA-CR 16-0607

Victim: an 11-year-old girl testified Ramos-Ramirez touched her vagina over her swimsuit while on a jet ski, told her to shave, and told her not to tell her mother.
Ramos-Ramirez admitted touching the victim over her bathing suit to police, expressed remorse, and made statements suggesting improper conduct; at trial he denied sexual motivation and disputed touching the lower vaginal area.
Jury convicted Ramos-Ramirez of child molestation (victim under 15), found emotional harm as an aggravator, and the court imposed an 11-year mitigated prison term.
Trial court instructed the jury per State v. Holle (then-appellate precedent) that the State must prove sexual motivation if evidence showed absence of sexual motivation; Arizona Supreme Court later held lack of sexual motivation is an affirmative defense requiring proof by a preponderance (State v. Holle).
Ramos-Ramirez appealed arguing (1) insufficient evidence of sexual motivation and (2) trial court erred by not giving a lesser-included instruction on attempted child molestation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to prove sexual motivation	State: Evidence (staring at victim’s genitals, touching over swimsuit, statements to avoid disclosure, admissions) permits a reasonable juror to infer sexual motivation	Ramos-Ramirez: Denied sexual motivation; argued evidence insufficient to prove sexual interest beyond a reasonable doubt (and under Holle standard)	Affirmed — substantial evidence supports sexual motivation under either Holle standard or the subsequently clarified affirmative-defense standard
Failure to instruct on lesser-included offense (attempted child molestation)	State: No obligation to give lesser-included instruction sua sponte absent a request; here facts did not support attempt instruction	Ramos-Ramirez: Trial court should have instructed on attempted child molestation as a lesser-included offense	Affirmed — no request was made; evidence did not permit a rational jury to find only attempt; omission was not fundamental error and did not prejudice defense

State v. West, 226 Ariz. 559 (discussing standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Stroud, 209 Ariz. 410 (defining substantial evidence standard)
State v. Cox, 217 Ariz. 353 (Jackson v. Virginia standard applied)
State v. Holle, 240 Ariz. 300 (holding lack of sexual motivation is an affirmative defense to be proved by defendant)
State v. Vanderlinden, 111 Ariz. 378 (no error in failing to give lesser-included instruction if not requested)
State v. Gipson, 229 Ariz. 484 (trial courts typically withhold lesser-included charges unless requested)
State v. Wall, 212 Ariz. 1 (instruction requirement limited to necessarily included offenses)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (legal sufficiency standard for convictions)
State v. Whittle, 156 Ariz. 405 (fundamental error standard for omitted instructions)