Bradley Bieganski v. Arizona

States have wide latitude to define crimes and defenses. Nevertheless, “there are obviously constitutional limits beyond which the States may not go” in reallocating burdens of proof by labeling elements of an offense to be affirmative defenses that must be established by the defendant instead of by the prosecution. Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197, 210 (1977). The question presented here is: Whether Arizona’s molestation statute -- which presumes that anyone, including parents and foster parents like Petitioner, who bathe or diaper their children, is a child molester and then, through an affirmative defense, shifts the burden to parents to prove that any non-accidental touching lacked sexual motivation -- violates the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution because it defies the presumption of innocence and absolves the prosecution of its constitutional burden to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, each substantive element of the offense.