Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 12
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2202 (2026)

Persons who may not be witnesses

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The following shall not be witnesses in a civil action:

1. Persons who are of unsound mind at the time they are called to testify.

2. Children under ten years of age who appear incapable of receiving just impressions of the facts respecting which they are to testify, or of relating them truly.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1959–2025 · leading case: State v. Jerousek, 590 P.2d 1366 (Ariz. 1979).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Jerousek, 590 P.2d 1366 (Ariz. 1979). · cites it 6× “Defendant bases his allegations on the victim’s demeanor at trial and on A.R.S. § 12-2202, which states that children under ten cannot be witnesses if they “appear incapable of receiving just impressions of the facts respecting which they are to testify, or of relating them…”
Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730 (1987). · cites it 2× “, Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 12-2202 (1982); Ga.”
State v. Schossow, 703 P.2d 448 (Ariz. 1985). · cites it 12× “In response to the Wheeler decision, a large number of states enacted statutes similar to A.R.S. § 12-2202, which states, in pertinent part: Persons who may not be witnesses.”
State v. Garner, 569 P.2d 1341 (Ariz. 1977). · cites it 8× “The court also asked the jury during voir dire: “Let me ask you this: Do all of you recognize that a person’s age and/or a person’s employment should have no bearing to you as to their ability to come before you as a witness?” Defendant contends this question was improper and…”
State v. Ault, 724 P.2d 545 (Ariz. 1986). · cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 12-2202 states, in part: "The following shall not be witnesses in a civil action: .”
State v. Superior Court, Pima Cnty., 719 P.2d 283 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 7× “Our competency rules have been revised and the elements of § 12-2202 no longer apply; thus, the specific concerns of the Washington court are not pertinent to a determination of reliability under § 13-1416.”
State v. Roberts, 677 P.2d 280 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 4× “Finally, the court concluded that even if the testimony was relevant, the prejudicial effect would outweigh any probative value because the testimony would confuse the jury and distract them by emphasizing a collateral issue. Initially, it is important to distinguish between…”
State v. Bowie, 580 P.2d 1190 (Ariz. 1978). · cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 12-2202; Keefe v. State, 50 Ariz.”
Toney v. Bouthillier, 631 P.2d 557 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 12-2202; Litzkuhn v. Clark, 85 Ariz.”
State v. Piatt, 644 P.2d 881 (Ariz. 1981). · cites it 2× “The question is one particularly suited to the jury as one of weight and credibility, subject to judicial authority to review the sufficiency of the evidence.”
Montgomery Elevator Co. v. Superior Court, 661 P.2d 1133 (Ariz. 1983). · cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 12-2202; Davis v. Weber, 93 Ariz.”
Davis v. Weber, 380 P.2d 608 (Ariz. 1963). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 12-2202. The trial judge’s ruling on the introduction of a child’s testimony will not be disturbed except in the case of a clear abuse of discretion.”
Show all 26 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2202(1) — 1 case
Nolde v. Frankie, 949 P.2d 511 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2202(2) — 4 cases
State v. Piatt, 644 P.2d 881 (Ariz. 1981). “The question is one particularly suited to the jury as one of weight and credibility, subject to judicial authority to review the sufficiency of the evidence.”
State v. Kasold, 521 P.2d 990 (Ariz. 1974).
Cardona v. Ivory (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).
State v. Castaneda, 517 P.3d 53 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.