I N TH E CO UR T OF A PP EALS S T AT E OF AR I Z ONA D I V I S I O N T WO T HE S T AT E OF AR I Z ONA, P eti ti o n er,

v . H O N
. V I R G I N I A K E L L Y , J udge of the Super i orC our tof the St at e of A r i zona, i n and fort he C ount yof Pi m a, R e sp o n d e n t, and S E YM OUR J AM E E L AB DUL L AH,

R e a l P a rtyin In ter e st. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 C A
- SA 2005- 0018

DEPA RTM ENT A O P I N I O N

S P E CI AL AC T I ON P RO CE E DI NG Pi m a C ount yC aus e N o. C R
- 20042176 RELI EF GRA NTED
B arbar a LaW al l , Pi m a C ount yA t t or ney B yT a re n M . E lli s Seym ourJ ameel A bdul l ah T ucs on A t t or ney s forPet i t i oner

T ucs on I n Pr opr i a Per s ona
B R A M M E R , J udge. M A Y 25 2005 

### F I L E D BY CLE RK

C OU RTOF A PP E A LS DI VIS ION TWOT he indi ct m ent i s not par tof the recor d b efore us. 1 2 ¶1 T h e S tat e o f A ri z o n a see k s sp ec ial ac ti o n reli ef fro m the re sp o n d en t j u d g e’s
or der , ent er ed i n t he under l y i ng cr i m i nal pr os ecut i on of r eal par t yi n interestSeym our A bdul l ah forun l aw ful pos s es s i on of a f i r earm bya pr ohi bi t ed pos s es s or , as cr i bi ng t o t he
s t at e the bur den of pr ovi ng A bdul l ah’ s r i ghtt o pos s es s fi r earm s has not been r es t or ed. For t he fol l ow i ng r eas ons , w e ac ceptj ur i s di ct i on and gr antr el i ef. ¶2 A bdul l ah appa r ent l yhas been c har ged w i t h t hr ee c ount s of w eapons
m isc o n d u c t f

o r p o ss e ss in g a d e a d lyw e a p o n b ya p ro h ib ited p o ss e ss o r. A p e rso n c o m m its 1

m i s conducti nvol vi ng w eapons byknow i ngl y“[p ]oss ess i ng a dea dl yw eapon . . . i f s uch p erso n is a p roh ibit ed p o sses so r. ” A
. R
. S
. § 1 3 -31 0 2 (A )(4). A “‘[ p ]roh ibit ed p o sses so r’
m e a n s a n yp e rs o n . . . [ w ]h o h a s b e e n c o n v ic te d w ith in o r w ith o u t th is s ta te o f a f e lo n y. . . a nd w ho s e c i vi l r i gh tt o p os s e s s orc a r r ya gu n o rfi r e a r m has no t been r e s t or e d. ” A
. R. S. § 13- 3101( A ) ( 6) ( b)
. B efor e tr i al , the st at e r eques t ed thatt he r es pondentj udge det erm i ne
w h ich p a r ty h a d th e b u rd e n o f p ro o f w ith re sp e c t to th e re sto ra tio n o f A b d u llah ’s r ig h t to
carrya fi rearm . T he st at e argue d t his i s an affirm at i ve d efen se, w hich the acc used m ust
es t abl i s h, notan el ementof t he cr i m e thatt he s t at e mustpr ove. A ft erdi s cus s i ng t he mat t er att he conc l us i on of a he ar i ng on A bdul l ah’s m ot i on t o s uppr es s evi dence , t he r es pondent ju d g e ru led th a t th e f

a c t th a t a d e f

e n d a n t’s rig h t to p o ss e ss f ire a rm s h a d n o t b e e n re sto re d is an el ementof the off

ens e. T hi s s peci al act i on fol l ow ed. ¶3 T h e re a r e s e v e r a l re a so n s o u r a c c e p tan c e o f sp e c ial a c tio n ju risd ictio n is
a p p ro p ri a te . T h e s ta te h a s n o e q u a lly p la in , s p e e d y , o r a d e q u a t e r e m e d yb ya p p e a l. See3

A .R .S . § 1 3 -4 0 3 2 ; see al so A r i z. R
. P. Speci al A ct i ons 1, 17B A
. R
. S. M or eover , t he ques t i on pr es ent ed i n t hi s s peci al act i on i s one of f i r s ti m pr es s i on as ther e i s no cas el aw i n A r i zona interpre ti n g the all o ca ti o n o f the b u rde n o f p roo f u n d er § 1 3 -31 0 1 (A )(6)(b). B ec au se f u ture pr os ecut i ons undert he s t atut e w i l l l i kel y be af fec t ed, t he mat t eri s of s t at ew i de i m por t ance . See Stat e v. W

i nkl er , 176 A r i z. 212, 859 P. 2d 1345 ( A pp. 1993) ( gr ant i ng s peci al act i on r el i ef in th e f a c e o f trial c o u rt’s im p e n d in g u se o f ju ryin stru c tio n in c r im in a l c a se e rro n e o u sly
a s s i g n i n g t o s t a t e b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g e l e me n t n o t f o u n d i n c r i mi n a l s t a tu t e )
. Ac c o r d i n g l y , we
a c c e p t ju ri s d ic tio n . A d d itio n a lly, w e re v ie w th e in te rp re ta tio n o f a s ta tu te d e n o v o . St at e v. T a m p lin , 1 9 5 A ri z. 24 6 , 9 8 6 P
. 2 d 9 1 4 (A p p . 1 9 9 9 ). ¶4 T h e r e s p o n d e n tj u d g e ’ s ru l i n g t h a tt h e n o n r e s t o r a t i o n o f t h e r i g h tt o c a r r y a fi r earm i s an el ementof the cr i m e of pr ohi bi t ed pos s es s orappea r s t o have be en bas ed on her

r eadi ng of t he pl ai n l anguage of § 13- 3101( A ) ( 6) ( b)
. Such a r eadi ng i s cert ai nl yj us t i fi abl e;
w e ac know l edge thatt he us e of “ and” i n a cr i m i nal s t atut e t ypi cal l y i nt r oduces an el ement
o f th e c ri m e , w h ic h th e s ta te m u s t, o f c o u rs e , p ro v e . See In re W in sh ip , 39 7 U. S. 35 8, 90 S. C t. 10 6 8 , 2 5 L . E d . 2 d 3 6 8 (1 9 7 0 ); Stat e v. Far l ey , 199 A r i z. 542, 19 P. 3d 1258 ( A pp. 2001) (D u e P ro c e s s C la u s e s o f th e F if th a n d F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n ts re q u ire a sta te to pr ove b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b te v e r yf a c tn e c e s s a r yt o e s t a b l i s h c r i mi n a l c o n d u c t )
. I n d e e d , we
r ece nt l yr ead §§ 13- 3102( A ) ( 4) and 13-3101( A ) ( 6) ( b) t he same w ay , al bei ti n a ca s e i n w hi ch

w e d id n o t sq u a re ly a d d re s s th e is s u e ra is e d h e re . Stat e v. Lopez , 209 A r i z. 58, ¶ 8, 97 P. 3d 8 8 3 , 8 8 5 (A p p . 2 0 0 4 ) (“L o p e z a ttem p ted to re m o v e f ro m th e ju ry ’s c o n sid e ra tio n e lem e n ts
o f th e c h a rg e d o f

f e n se
— th a t h e h a s a p rio r f e lo n yc o n v ictio n a n d th a t h is c iv il righ t to4

pos s es s or carr y a fi r earm has not been r es t or ed. ”)
. A nd i n Stat e v. H uds on , 152 A r i z. 121, 730 P. 2d 830 ( 1986) , ours upr eme cour t i m pl i ci t l y r egar ded nonr es t or at i on of the r i ghtt o be an el ementi n addr es s i ng t he pr opr i etyof the tr i al cour t ’ s deni al of the def endant ’ s m ot i on forj udgm entof acqui t t al pur s uant t o R ul e 20, A r i z. R
. C r i m . P. , 17 A
. R
. S. , i n a pr ohi bi t ed pos s es s orcas e. T he cour t s t at ed: “The evi dence s how ed t hatdefe ndanthad bee n convi ct ed of r obberyand t hat defe ndant ’ s ci vi l r i ght s had not been r es t or ed. T her efor e, t he def endant

w as a ‘ pr ohi bi t ed pos s es s or . ’ ” Id
. at127, 730 P. 2d at836. ¶5 In n eith er Hudson n o r Lopezw as t he courtpr es ent ed di r ect l yw i t h t he i s s ue befor e us . A ccor di ngl y , t he s t at ement s i n t hos e ca s es s ugges t i ng t he nonrestor at i on of the

r i ghtt o carr ya fir earm i s an el ementt he s t at e mustpr ove i n a pr ohi bi t ed pos s es s or p ro s e c u tio n w e re n o t h o ld in g s b u t d ic ta , a n d a re th e re f o re n o t b in d in g a u th o ri ty. See C r each

v . A n g u lo , 1 8 6 A riz . 5 4 8 , 5 5 2 , 9 2 5 P .2 d 6 8 9 , 6 9 3 (A p p . 1 9 9 6 ) (D iv isio n O n e o f th is c o u rt, decl i ni ng t o fol l ow di ctum i n A r i zon a S u p rem e C our topi ni on, s t at i ng: “D i ctum i s not b in d in g p re c e d e n t b e c a u s e , in tera lia , itis w ith o u t th e f o rce o f a d

ju d ica ti o n an d the c o u rt
m a yn o t h a v e b e e n f

u lly a d v is e d o n th e q u e s tio n ” ). ¶6 A lth o u g h w e n o rm a llya ss ig n p lain m e a n in g to th e w o rd s o f a sta tu te, w e w ill

n o t d o s o w h e n a p la in m e a n in g in te rp re ta tio n is a t o d d s w ith th e le g is la tu re ’s in te n t. S ta te
v. V ogel , 207 A r i z. 280, 85 P. 3d 497 ( A pp . 2 004)
. H avi ng m or e ful l ycont empl at ed that in ten t, w e n o w c o n c lu d e th a t a d e f e n d a n t b e a rs th e b u rd e n o f p ro v in g h is o r h e r r ig h t to p o s s e s s a f

ir e a rm h a s b e e n re s to re d in a p ro s e c u tio n u n d e r § 1 3 -3 1 0 1 (A )( 6 )( b ).5

¶7 Th e s t a t e r e l i es on S tate v. N oel , 3 A riz . A p p . 3 1 3 , 4 1 4 P .2 d 1 6 2 (1 9 6 6 ), in

w hi c h thi s c ou r ta dd r e s s e d the i de nt i cal i ss ue un de ra pr e de c e s s ors t a tut e , fo r merA
. R. S. § 13- 919, w hi ch, as r epr oduced i n N oel , pr ovi ded: “I ti s unl aw ful fora per s on w ho has been convi ct ed of a cr i m e of vi ol ence i n any cour t of the U ni t ed St at es , i t s t err i t or i es , di s t r i ct s or pos s es s i ons , orof t he s ever al s t at es , t o pos s es s a pi s t ol , unl es s s uch per s on has been pa r doned fors uch cr i m e orhas byl aw r egai ned ful l s t atus as a ci t i zen. ” 3 A r i z. A pp. at314, 414 P. 2d at163 ( emphasi s del et ed)
. W e conc l uded, w i t h cur s or y anal y s i s , t hat t he defenda ntbor e the b u rd e n o f

p ro v in g h e f

e ll w ith in th a t s ta tu te ’s e x c e p tio n . ¶8 A lthou gh t he tw o s t atutes con vey essent i al l y t he sam e con cept, t he re is
s i gni fi cant l ydi ffe r entl anguage i n t he tw o. T he pr ovi s i on at i s s ue w as i nt r oduced i n for m er § 1 3 -9 1 9 w ith “ u n les s . . . ” ; § 1 3 -3 1 0 1 (A )(6 )(b ) us e s “a n d
. . . n o t
. . . . ” W e g e n e ra lly pr es um e thatw hen the l egi s l atur e amends t he l anguage of a s t atut or ypr ovi s i on, i ti nt ended th a t th e c h a n g e h a v e m e a n in g . See Stat e v. G ar z a R odr iguez , 164 A r i z. 107, 791 P. 2d 633 (1 9 9 0 ). H o w e v e r, th e c h a n g e in a n d re n u m b e rin g o f A riz o n a ’s p ro h ib ited p o ss e ss o r sta tu te
w as par tof the compr ehens i ve adopt i on of the ent i r el ynew r evi s ed cr i m i nal code e ffe ct i ve i n 1978. 1977 A r i z. Ses s . L aw s , ch. 94 ( r epea l i ng for m er§ 13- 919 al ong w i th the bul k of t he form ercode) , § 142 ( i m pl ement i ng §§ 13- 3101,
- 3102)
. W hen st atut es ar e cha nged as par tof a r ecodi fi cat i on and t he funct i on of t he new s t atut e i s i dent i cal i n for m t o t he form er pr ovi s i on, i ti s pr es um ed the l egisl ature m eantt o cont i nue the s ame i nt ent , even w hen the la n g u a g e o f t h e n e w s ta tu te is n o t id e n tic a l to th e f o rm e r. See V

i elm a v. E ur eka Co. , 218 F .3 d 4 5 8 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ); see al so 73 A m . J ur . 2d Stat ut es § 2 2 4 (2 0 0 1 ) (“ [ I]t is a se ttl e d ru le6

of cons t ruct i on t hatw her e th e ent i r e l egi s l at i on aff ect i ng a part i cul ars ubj ectm at t erhas under gone r evi s i on and cons ol i dat i on bycodi fi cat i on, t he r evi s ed s t atut es w i l l be pr es um ed t o beart he s ame m eani ng as t he ori gi nal s ect i ons , not w i t hs t andi ng t hat t her e i s an al t er at i on in p h rase o log y . ”). ¶9 M o re o v e r, alth o u g h th e u se o f “ a n d ” in a c rim in a l sta tu te m ig h t n o rm a lly i nd i cat e t hat an el em ent i s t o fol l ow , t he provi si on ati ssue here r eads “ and w hos e ci vi l r i ght t o p ossess or car rya gu n o r fi rearm has notb e e n re sto re d .” § 1 3 -3 1 0 1 (A )(6 )(b ) (e m p h a sis added)
. T he negat i ve aspe ct of t hi s pr ovi s i on m akes i t extr emel y i l l

- s ui t ed t o be an el ement
o f th e c r im e ; it w o u ld p lac e a n o n e ro u s b u rd e n o n th e sta te to p ro v e b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t th a t so m e th in g h a s n o t h a p p e n e d , n o t o n ly in th is s ta te b u t th ro u g h o u t th e c o u n tr y . See U ni t ed Stat es v. B ar t elho , 71 F. 3d 436, 440 ( 1s tC ir
. 1995) ( r ej ect i ng ar gum entt hat g o v e rn m e n t b o re b u rd e n o f e sta b lish in g f e d e ra l d e f

e n d a n t’s f

a ilu re to re sto re h is c iv il righ ts i n pr ovi ng pr ohi bi t ed pos s es s orchar ge and not i ng t hatgovernm entw oul d ot herw i s e “be

r equi r ed t o r efut e everypos s i bi l i t yt hatcr i m i nal defe ndant s have ha d t hei rpr i orconvi ct i ons
n u ll ifi ed o r th eir civil ri g h ts r esto red ”). ¶10 T h e “ a n d
. . . n o t” c o n stru c tio n in tro d u c e s a n e g a tiv e c o n d iti o n in to th e sta tu te t hatfunct i ons t he s ame w ay“unl es s ” or“exc ept ” w oul d: as a s t atut or yexce pt i on orpr ovi s o. See 8 2 C .J .S
. St at ut es § § 3 7 0 , 3 7 1 (19 9 9 ) (de fin ing an d ex p lai n ing ex ce p ti o n an d p rov iso). A lth o u g h s o m e tim e s c la s s if ie d a s a typ e o f

a f f i r m a t i v e d e f

e n s e , s ee 2 McC or m i ck on E vi dence , § 3 4 1 a t 4 3 1 -3 2 (J. S tro n g e d ., 5 th e d . 1 9 9 9 ), sta tu to ry e x c e p tio n s a re c o n c e p tu a lly di ffe r entfr om j us t i fi cat i on defe ns es , s uch as t hos e codi fi ed atA
. R
. S. §§ 13- 401 t hr ough 417,7

in th a t th e yd o n o t ex c u se o r ju stif ya n a c to r w h o e n g a g e s in th e p ro h ib ited c o n d u c t b u t,
r ather , excl ude t he act or fr om t he cl as s of peopl e for w hom t he conduc ti s pr ohi bi t ed. O ur fi ndi ng t hatt he r es t or at i on pr ovi s i on of § 13- 3101( A ) ( 6) ( b) i s s uch an e xcept i on i s s uppor t ed byt he fa ctt hatt he pr ovi s i on ati s s ue i s cont ai ned i n § 13- 3101( A ) ( 6) ( b) , t he def i ni t i ons
sec ti o n d esc ri b ing the c lass o f p eo p le w h o are p roh ibit ed p o sses so rs, n o t § 1 3 -31 0 2 (A )(4), t he s t atut e def

i ni ng t he cr i m i nal actt hatcons t i tut es t he off ens e. ¶11 B ec aus e the r es t or at i on pr ovi s i on of § 13- 3101( A ) ( 6) ( b) funct i ons as an
exce pt i on, it is n o tan el ementof the off ens e thatt he s t at e mustpr ove. “A defe ndantw ho

r el i es upon an exc ept i on t o a cr i m i nal s t atut e made bya pr ovi s o ordi s t i n ct c laus e has t he bur den of e s t abl i s hi ng an d s how i ng t hats he comes w i t hi n t he exc ept i on. ” I n r e M ar i copa C ount y Juv eni l e Act i on N

o. JT9065297 , 1 8 1 A ri z. 6 9 , 8 2 , 8 8 7 P
. 2 d 5 9 9 , 6 1 2 (A p p . 1 9 9 4 ); see al so U nited S t ates v. Henry , 6 1 5 F .2 d 1 2 2 3 ( 9 th C ir. 1 9 8 0 ) (s a m e ); Stat e v. R os thenhaus l er , 1 4 7 A riz . 4 8 6 , 7 1 1 P .2 d 6 2 5 (A p p . 1 9 8 5 ) (sta tu to ry e x c e p tio n f o r in o p e ra b le fi r earm s notan el ement of cr i m e i nvol vi ng deadl yw eapon; bur den t o s how i noper abi l i t yon d e f e n d a n t); St at e v. Q uandt , 17 A r i z. A pp. 33, 34, 495 P. 2d 158, 159 ( 1972) ( i n uphol di ng defe ndant ’ s convi ct i on forpos s es s i on of i l l egal drugs under for m er s t atut e, w hi ch cont ai ned
ex ce p ti o n s fo r do ctors a n d o ther m ed ical pro fe ssion als, co u rth eld: “itis th e d e fe n d an t’ s
re sp o n sib ili ty ” to sh o w h e f e ll w ith in th e c las s o f e x c e p ted p e o p le) ; see al so D ag E. Y t r eber g, J .D ., A n n o ta tio n , B ur den of P r oof as t o Lack of

Li cens e i n C r i m i nalP r os ecut i on f or C arryi ngor P ossess io n o f W eap on W

i tho ut Li cense , 69 A
. L
. R
. 3d 1054, § 3 ( 1976) (su rv e y in g sta te s tatu tes d e f in in g so m e w h a t an a lo g o u s c rim e o f c a rry in g w e a p o n w ith o u t a8

perm i tand fi ndi ng “gene r al rul e” i s l ack of li cens e i s notel ementof cr i m e and de fenda nt b e a rs th e b u rd e n o f

p ro d u c in g e v id e n c e h e o r s h e h a s lic e n s e ). ¶12 W e al s o fi nd per s uas i ve opi ni ons fr om t he K entucky appel l at e cour t s , as our pr ohi bi t ed pos s es s ors t atut es w er e der i ved, i n par t , fr om t he K entucky Penal C ode. R udol ph J . G e rb e r, C r i m i nalLaw of A r iz ona , § § 1 3 -3 1 0 1 , -3 1 0 2 (2 d e d . 1 9 9 3 ); s ee C acho v. Super i or C our tI n and ForC ount

y of Mar i copa , 17 0 A ri z. 30 , 33 , 82 1 P
. 2d 72 1, 72 4 (199 1) ( “B ecause A r i zona’ s ven u e stat u t e w as adopt ed fr om t he Texas s t atut e, t hats t at e’ s deci s i ons ar e of par t i cul ari nt er es t ”)
. I n E a ry v . C o m m o n w e a lth , 659 S. W
. 2d 198, 200 ( K y . 1 9 8 3 ), t he K entuckySupr eme C our t i nt erpr et ed the K entuckypr ohi bi t ed pos s es s ors t atut e, w hi ch pr ovi ded: A per s on i s gui l t yof pos s essi on of a ha ndgun bya convi ct ed

fel on w hen he pos s es s es , m anufa ctur es , ort r ans por t s a handgun wh e n h e h a s b e e n c o n v i c t e d o f a f e l o n y , a s d e f

i n e d b yt h e l a ws o f the juri s di ct i on i n w hi ch he w as convi ct ed, i n anys t at e or f e d e ra l co u rt and

has not : ( a) B een g r a n t e d a f

u l l p a r d o n b yt h e g o v e r n o ro rb yt he pr es i dentof the U ni t ed St at es ; or ( b) B een gr ant ed r el i ef byt he U ni t ed St at es s ecr et aryof the t r eas ur ypur s uantt o t he Feder al G un C ont r ol A ct o f 1 968, as amended. ( E m phas i s added. ) I n E ary , t he cour t hel d t hat s ubs ect i on ( b) w as a “nega t i ve” i s s ue and w as
n o t, there fo re, an elem en t that the go v ern m en t h ad to pro v e. 6 5 9 S
. W
. 2 d at 2 0 0
. T h e c o u rt
re lie d o n a n e a rl ie r o p in io n b yth e K e n tu c k yC o u rt o f A p p e a ls , D u v a ll v. C o m m o n w e a lth , 593 S. W
. 2d 884, 886 ( K y . A pp. 1979) , w hi ch had found t hat s ubs ect i on ( a) w as notan el ement of the cr im e, ins tead hol di ng i tw as “a ne gat i ve i s s ue” a nd t he comm onw eal t h w as not9

r equi r ed t o offe r pr oof t hat defe ndant w as not w i t hi n t he cl as s of peopl e exc l uded fr om t he
s ta tu te ’ s o p e r a t io n . Id
. N ot abl y , t he K entuckycour t s r eac hed thes e conc l us i ons
no t w i t hst and i ng t he “an d .
. . no t ” ph ras i ng t he K entuckyst atute s hares w i t h o urs. ¶13 H avi ng found thatt he nonr es t or at i o n of ci vi l r i ght s i s notan el ementof the
cr i m e the s t at e mustpr ove, butrathe ran exc ept i on w i t h t he bur den of pr ovi ng i tbor ne by A bdul l ah, w e m us t cl ar i fy t he natur e of t hat bur den. A l t hough t he s t at e as ks i n i t s pet i t i on fors peci al act i on t hatw e det erm i ne the pr operal l ocat i on of the bur den of pr oof, t he bur den of pr oof ac tual l y cons i s t s of t w o par t s : t he bur den of goi ng forw ar d ( al s o cal l ed the bur den of pr oduct i on ort he bur den of e vi dence ) , and the bur den of pe r s uas i on.

T h e b u rd e n o f p e rsu a sio n , a s it s n a m e im p lies , re q u ire s th e p a rty t hat bear s i t t o per s uade t he t r i er of fact t o rul e i n i t s favor
. T he bur den of goi ng forw ar d, i n contr as t , r equi r es t he part yt hat bear s it to pr oduce s uffi ci entpr el i m i naryevi dence before t he p a rtyw ith th e b u rd e n o f p e rsu a sio n m u st p ro c e e d w ith its ev iden ce . T h u s, fa il u re to m ee t th e b u rd en o f g o ing fo rw ard r es ul t s i n an adve r s e rul i ng befor e pr es ent at i o n o f evi dence by t he part yw i t h t he bur den of pe r s uas i on. St at e v. H

yde , 1 8 6 A riz . 2 5 2 , 2 6 6 , 9 2 1 P .2 d 6 5 5 , 6 6 9 (1 9 9 6 ) (c it a tio n s o m itt e d ); see al so 2 McC or m i ck on Evi dence , § 3 3 6
. A b d u lla h c e rt a in ly b e a rs th e b u rd e n o f g o in g f o rw a rd
. Mar i copa C ount

y N o. JT9065297; R os thenhaus l er . T h u s, i f he f ai l s t o pr oduce a ny
a d m iss ib le e v id e n c e th a t h is rig h t to c a rryf ire a rm s h a s b e e n re sto re d , the sta te w ill p re v a il on t he i s s ue w i t houtbei ng r equi r ed t o pr es entanyevi dence of nonr es t or at i on. ¶14 Feder al cour t s , addr es s i ng t he s ame ques t i on undert he fe d er al pr ohi bi t ed p o ss e ss o r sta tu tes , h a v e h e ld th a t th e d e f e n d a n t b e a rs th e b u rd e n o f g o in g f o rw a rd w ith evi dence of r es t or at i on of r i ght s , butt he govern m ent bear s t he bur den of pe r s uas i on of10

n o n re s to ra tio n if

th e d e f e n d a n t p ro d u c e s a n ys u c h e v id e n c e . See Bartelho , 71 F. 3d at440; U ni t ed Stat es v. Jack

s on , 5 7 F
. 3 d 1 0 1 2 , 1 0 1 6 (11 th C ir
. 1 9 9 5 ). T h o se d ec isi o n s, h o w ev er,
ar e bas ed on the fa ctt hat t he s t atut or y exce pt i on for t hos e w hos e r i ght t o carr y a w eapon ha s b e e n re s to re d is a n a lo g o u s to a n a f f ir m a tiv e d e f

e n s e , B ar t elho , 71 F. 3d at440 ( “A cl ai m of

r es t or at i on of ci vi l r i ght s i s i n t he natur e of a n affir m ati v e defens e. ”) , and i n fede r al pr o sec u ti ons t he governm entbear s t he bur den of pe r s uas i on i n di s pr ovi ng aff i r m at i ve d e f e n s e s . I d. ; Jack s on , 57 F. 3d 1016. Si m i l ar l y , i n R os thenhaus l er , this c o u rt o p in e d th a t, i f the def

endantt h ere had methi s bur den of goi ng forw ar d, t he s t at e w oul d have ha d t he bur den of per s uas i on t o di s pr ove t he exce pt i on. T hat r eas oni ng w as bas ed, i n par t , on S ta te
v. B er ndt , 138 A ri z. 4 1 , 6 7 2 P. 2d 1311 ( 1980) , w hi ch di s cus s ed how t he bur dens of produ c tio n an d p ers uasi on w ere form erl yal l ocated w i t h respectt o the affi rm at i ve d efen se
o f i n s a n i t y. ¶15 B utnei t hert he s t at e norfede r al cons t i tut i ons pr ohi bi tas s i gni ng t he def endant th e b u rd e n o f p e rs u a s io n f o r a n a f f ir m a tiv e d e f

e n s e . Stat e v. C as ey , 205 A r i z. 359, 71 P. 3d 3 5 1 (2 0 0 3 ); s ee U

ni t ed Stat es v. A lvar ez , 755 F. 2d 830, 842 n. 12 ( 11t h C i r . 1985) ( bur den
o f p e rsu a sio n o n a f

f irm a tiv e d e f

e n se s “m a yf

a ll o n e ith e r th e g o v e rn m e n t o r th e d e f e n d a n t,
as det erm i ned by s t atut e or cour t deci s i on”)
. I n 1997, t he A r i zona l egi s l atur e as s i gned the b u rd e n o f

p e rs u a s io n f

o r a f f ir m a tiv e d e f

e n s e s to th e d e f

e n d a n t. S e c tio n 1 3 -2 0 5 (A ), A .R .S ., now pr ovi des : “Exc ept as ot herw i s e pr ovi ded byl aw , a def endants hal l pr ove any affir m ati v e defe ns e r ai s ed bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence , i ncl udi ng anyj us t i fi cat i on defe ns e. ” W e do notchar act er i ze the st atut or y exce pt i on t o t he prohi bi t ed pos s es s ors t atut es11

f o r t h o s e w h o s e ri g h ts h a v e b e e n re s to re d a s a t r u e a f f i r m a tiv e d e f

e n s e . B uts ee Stat e v. B er r ym an , 1 7 8 A ri z . 6 1 7 , 8 7 5 P .2 d 8 5 0 (A p p . 1 9 9 4 ) (s tatu to rye x c e p tio n f o r in o p e ra b le

w e a p o n s d e e m e d a f

f irm a tiv e d e f

e n se ). H o w e v e r, w e a g re e th e e x c e p tio n f u n c tio n s s im ilarly t o an af fi r m at i ve def

ens e and s ee no r eas on for i nfus i ng unnece s s ary confus i on i nt o A r i zona law b yan n o u n cing an inco n sist en t bu rde n o r st an d ard o f p roo f f o r ex ce p ti o n s. W e the ref o re dr aw gui dance fr om § 13- 205( A ) and hol d A bdul l ah has t he bur den of pe r s uadi ng t he tr i er of fa ctbya pr eponder ance of the evi dence t hathi s ci vi l r i ght s have be en r es t or ed. ¶16 F in a lly , w e o b se rv e th a t as sig n in g th e u lti m a te b u rd e n to th e d e f e n d a n t is nei t herunr eas onabl e norunat t ai nabl e. I n t he abse nce of anycontr aryevi dence pr es ent ed by t he s t at e, i f A bdul l ah meet s hi s bur den of goi ng forw ar d w i t h s uffi ci entadmi s s i bl e evi dence t o r ai s e the i s s ue of r es t or at i on of r i ght s , t hatevi dence w i l l al s o s at i s fyhi s bur den of per s uas i on and he w i l l nece s s ar i l ypr evai l on t he i s s ue. I n anycas e i n w hi ch the def endant
s ucce s s ful l yr ai s es t he i s s ue of r es t or at i on, t he s t at e w i l l be obl i gat ed t o atl eas tm eett hat evi dence w i t h equi val ent evi dence of nonr es t or at i on or t he defe ndant w i l l have pr oduced the p re p o n d e ra n c e o f

th e e v id e n c e . ¶17 W e c o n c l u d e , t h e n , t h a t§ 1 3
- 3 1 0 1 ( A) ( 6 ) ( b ) p r o v i d e s a n e x c e p t i o n t o t he pr ohi bi t ed poss es s or defi ni t i on for a per s on w hos e r i ghtt o carr ya fi r earm has been r es t or ed. A b d u llah h a s th e b u rd e n o f p ro d u c in g a d m iss ib le e v id e n c e d e m o n stra tin g h e c o m e s w ith in t h a te x c e p t i o n . I f

h e d o e s s o , a n d i f h e t h e n c a n c o n v i n c e t h e j u r y o f t h a tf a c tb y a pr eponder ance of t he evi dence , he shoul d be ac qui t t ed. A ccor di ngl y , t he r es pondentj udge
e r r e d a s a ma t t e ro f

l a w i n f i n d i n g t h e n o n r e s t o r a t i o n o f r i g h t s t o b e a n e l e me n to f t h e c r i me12

t he s t at e mustpr ove bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtatA bdul l ah’s upcomi ng t r i al
. A n err orof la w m a yc o n s titu te a n a b u s e o f d is c re tio n , C har t O ne v. B er ni ni , 207 A r i z. 162, 83 P. 3d 1103 ( Ap p . 2 0 0 4 ) , a n d i ti s h e r e a n a p p r o p r i a t e g r o u n d f o r g r a n t i n g s p e c i a l a c t i o n r e l i e f
. Ar i z . R. P . S p e c ia l A c tio n s 3 (c ). W e th e re f o re a c c e p t ju ri s d ic tio n a n d g ra n t r e lie f
.

J
. W I L L I A M B R A M M E R , J R
. , J udge CO NC UR RI NG:

J O SE PH W
. H O W A R D , Pr es i di ng J udge

PE T E R J
. E C K E R ST R O M , J udge