## Facts

- A 13-year-old boy digitally penetrated the vagina of a 3-year-old girl who was visiting his home.
- A medical examination showed severe bruising and bleeding, and a torn hymen.
- At the delinquency adjudication, the defense argued the act was not motivated by an “unnatural or abnormal sexual interest in children.”
- A defense psychologist testified the behavior, though inappropriate, was not clinically abnormal or indicative of sexual deviance for a 13-year-old and could fall within adolescent exploratory behavior.
- The juvenile court adjudicated the boy delinquent for child molestation under A.R.S. § 13-1410.

## Issues

1. Whether proof of child molestation under A.R.S. § 13-1410 requires a showing that the act was motivated by an “unnatural or abnormal sexual interest with respect to children.”
2. Whether uncontradicted expert testimony that a 13-year-old’s conduct is not clinically deviant renders the evidence insufficient to support a delinquency adjudication for child molestation.

## Decision

- The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the delinquency adjudication.
- The court treated “unnatural or abnormal sexual interest” as a judicially developed limitation used to distinguish criminal sexual conduct from innocent contact, not as a clinical diagnosis requirement.
- The juvenile court was not bound by expert testimony on clinical abnormality and could independently determine motivation under ordinary societal standards.
- Based on the nature of the act and the resulting injuries, the evidence supported a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the conduct was criminal child molestation.

## Legal Principles

- The “unnatural or abnormal sexual interest” concept is a judicial gloss used to separate criminal molestation from innocent touching; it is not statutory language in A.R.S. § 13-1410.
- Whether conduct reflects an “unnatural or abnormal sexual interest” is assessed by normal societal standards rather than psychiatric or clinical classifications.
- A fact-finder may reject or discount expert opinion testimony and draw reasonable inferences about sexual motivation from the circumstances and physical evidence.
- Severe, sexualized contact with a very young child may permit an inference of the required sexual motivation without expert proof of deviance.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a juvenile delinquency adjudication for child molestation, holding that clinical testimony that a 13-year-old is not sexually deviant does not preclude finding, under societal standards and the surrounding facts, that the act reflected an unnatural or abnormal sexual interest sufficient to establish molestation.


In re Maricopa Cnty. Juv. Action No. JV-121430, 172 Ariz. 604, 838 P.2d 1365 (Ct. App. 1992)