Court Opinion

ID: 9616764
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:49:34.956695+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:01.310897
License: Public Domain

HOLOHAN, Vice Chief Justice
(specially concurring):
Although I prefer to adhere to our previous decision in Greenfield v. Cheek, supra, which approved the ruling of Division One of the Court of Appeals, the majority of the court prefers, for sake of uniformity, to accept the federal position that scienter is not an element of a violation of A.R.S. § 44-1991(2). As I understand the position of the court this ruling applies only to civil cases brought under the cited statutes.
I join with the majority in holding that scienter is not required in civil cases brought for violation of subsection 2 of A.R.S. § 44-1991. In any criminal prosecution brought under A.R.S. § 44-2036 for a violation of A.R.S. § 44-1991(2), I believe that scienter is required.