PHOENIX — State constitutional provisions that deny bail to people solely because they’re accused of having sex with a minor violate the U.S. Constitution, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
The justices acknowledged arguments by prosecutors that trial judges have the right to keep certain people behind bars while awaiting trial as a method of protecting the public. And they said the crime of sexual conduct with a minor is a serious charge.
But Justice Clint Bolick, writing for the unanimous court, said the seriousness of the charge, by itself, is insufficient to result in automatic denial of release. He said prosecutors have to prove that the defendant poses a specific threat and that there are no conditions that can be imposed that allow that person’s release while protecting the public.
Prosecutors argued that the justices should honor the will of voters who approved state constitutional provisions in 2002 limiting access to bail.
“The people of Arizona determined that sexual conduct with a minor is an acute problem and that pretrial detention for those accused of that crime was in the best interest of the community,” said Deputy Maricopa Attorney David Cole.
The ruling involves Joe P. Martinez, who is facing several charges, including sexual conduct with a minor younger than 15. He has been held without bail since April 2014 based on the state constitutional provision and a companion law that deny bail in certain kinds of crime “if the proof is evidence or the presumption great that the person is guilty of the offense charged.”
Bolick said there are situations where an individual’s right to freedom “can, in appropriate circumstances, outweigh an individual’s liberty interest.” He cited a U.S. Supreme Court decision which upheld denial of bail to those who may be a danger to the community.
But Bolick pointed out that ruling was based on a finding that “a defendant posed a danger to specific individual or the community at large.” By contrast, he said, Arizona looks only at the crime charged and whether it’s likely the person is guilty. That offends the federal guarantee of due process, he said.
