Summary
This Ninth Circuit opinion reverses the district court’s denial of a habeas petition challenging an Arizona state conviction for child molestation. The court held that Arizona’s statutory scheme unconstitutionally shifted the burden of disproving sexual motivation—an essential element of the crime—to the defendant, violating the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Consequently, the panel remanded the case with instructions to issue a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Arizona’s statutory scheme that places the burden of proving lack of sexual interest on the defendant violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Holdings
- Arizona’s child‑molestation statute unconstitutionally shifts the burden of disproving an essential element of the crime to the defendant, violating the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause.
Factual background
Bradley Bieganski operated a girls‑only private Christian home‑school. He helped bathe the girls, touching their genitals, and asserted an affirmative defense that he was not motivated by a sexual interest. A jury convicted him of child molestation on three counts.
Procedural history
The district court denied Bieganski's habeas petition, holding that Arizona's child‑molestation statute and its affirmative‑defense scheme did not violate due process. Bieganski appealed, arguing that the statute unconstitutionally shifted the burden of proving lack of sexual motivation to the defendant.
Remand instructions
Issue a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.