holding that scienter is not an element of a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1991(2) [cf. NRS 90.570(2)], even though it may be an element of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1991(1) [cf. NRS 90.570(1)]
How later courts described this case
- holding that scienter is not an element of a violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1991(2) [cf. NRS 90.570(2)], even though it may be an element of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1991(1) [cf. NRS 90.570(1)]
- noting that the Arizona equivalent of HRS § 485-25(a)(2) is a counterpart to section 17(a)(2) and holding scien-ter is not required in civil cases, based on plain language analysis and Aaron
- stating federal law is persuasive in procedural matters
- “scienter is not an element of a violation of Á.R.S. § 44-1991(2), even though it may be an element of A.R.S. § 44-1991(1),” those sections being virtually identical to Sections 17(a)(1) and (a)(2)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
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.