In State v. Heinze, 196 Ariz. 126, 130,18, 993 P.2d 1090, 1094 (App. 1999), the Court considered whether the State had a duty to indemnify a former state employee for damages he caused by sexually harassing other employees. Id. at 128,1, 993 P.2d at 1092. The relevant statute excluded from state insurance coverage "an act or omission determined by a court to be a felony." Id. at 130,16, 993 P.2d at 1094. In holding that a felony conviction was not a prerequisite to application of the exclusion, the Court reasoned that because the statute did not specify that the state employee must have been convicted of a felony or exclude only losses arising from acts or omissions determined to be a felony by a criminal court, any court could make the requisite determination that the relevant act or omission was a felony. Id. at 130,18, 993 P.2d at 1094. The Court noted that the legislature has enacted numerous statutes in which civil consequences flow from a felony conviction, the admission of a felony, or the admission of the elements of a felony, id. at 130-31 nn.4-5, 993 P.2d at 1094-95 nn.4-5, and elected not to view its choice to omit such language from the indemnification statute as an oversight. Id. at 131,20, 993 P.2d at 1095.