Arizona Statutes
§ 13-2305 — Permissible inferences
In an action for trafficking in stolen property:
1.Proof of possession of property recently stolen, unless satisfactorily explained, may give rise to an inference that the person in possession of the property was aware of the risk that it had been stolen or in some way participated in its theft.
2.Proof of the purchase or sale of stolen property at a price substantially below its fair market value, unless satisfactorily explained, may give rise to an inference that the person buying or selling the property was aware of the risk that it had been stolen.
3.Proof of the purchase or sale of stolen property by a dealer in property, out of the regular course of business, or without the usual indicia of ownership other than mere possession, unless satisfactorily explained, may give rise to
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Arizona § 13-2305 (Permissible inferences) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
State v. Jones
610 P.2d 51 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1980)
State v. Dixon
622 P.2d 501 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2006)
State v. Ramos
330 P.3d 987 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2014)
State v. Alfaro
623 P.2d 8 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1980)
State v. Mohr
724 P.2d 1233 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1986)
State v. Curiel
634 P.2d 988 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1981)
State v. Fancy
676 P.2d 1134 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1983)
State v. Cole
734 P.2d 1042 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1987)
State v. Buchholz
678 P.2d 488 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1983)
State of Arizona v. George Willie Rios
528 P.3d 479 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2023)
State v. Smith
828 P.2d 778 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1992)
State v. Van Winkle
616 P.2d 936 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1980)
State v. Garcia
840 P.2d 1063 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1992)
State v. Crom
(Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2015)
State v. Jones
(Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2022)
State v. Reyes
704 P.2d 261 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1985)
State v. Roeschen
(Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2021)
State v. Taft
(Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2020)
Nearby Sections
15
§ 13-1001
Attempt; classifications§ 13-1002
Solicitation; classifications§ 13-1003
Conspiracy; classification§ 13-1004
Facilitation; classification§ 13-101
Purposes§ 13-101.01
Additional purposes of the criminal law§ 13-102
Applicability of title§ 13-104
Rule of construction§ 13-105
Definitions§ 13-107
Time limitations§ 13-108
Territorial applicability