Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 13
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1006 (2026)

Effect of immunity, irresponsibility or incapacity of a party to solicitation, conspiracy or facilitation

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

A. It is not a defense to a prosecution for solicitation, conspiracy or facilitation that a person solicited, facilitated or with whom the defendant conspired could not be guilty of committing the offense because:

1. Such person is, by definition of the offense, legally incapable in an individual capacity of committing the offense; or

2. Such person is not criminally responsible as defined in chapter 5 of this title, or has an immunity to prosecution or conviction for the commission of the offense; or

3. Such person does not have the state of mind sufficient for the commission of the offense in question.

B. It is not a defense to a prosecution for solicitation or conspiracy that the defendant is, by definition of the offense, legally incapable in an individual capacity of committing the offense that is the object of the solicitation or conspiracy.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1981–2016 · leading case: State v. Felkins, 749 P.2d 946 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Felkins, 749 P.2d 946 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 9× “A.R.S. § 13-1006 provides: A. It is not a defense to a prosecution for solicitation, conspiracy or facilitation that a person solicited, facilitated or with whom the defendant conspired could not be guilty of committing the offense because: 1.”
State v. Barragan-Sierra, 196 P.3d 879 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 3× “See A.R.S. § 13-1006(B). These underlying principles distinguish this ease from Cota .”
State v. Ortiz, 639 P.2d 1020 (Ariz. 1981). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 13-1006(A) provides: “It is not a defense to a prosecution for * * * conspiracy * * * that a person * * with whom the defendant conspired could not be guilty of committing the offense because: * * * (2) Such person is not criminally responsible as defined in chapter 5…”
We Are Am. v. Maricopa Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 297 F.R.D. 373 (D. Ariz. 2013). · cites it 4× “Defendants also point out that A.R.S. § 13-1006(B) recognizes that a person may commit conspiracy to commit an offense, even if that person cannot be convicted of the offense itself.”
Wright v. Hon. gates/state, 382 P.3d 83 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “3 I do not believe that the majority’s reference to A.R.S. § 13-1006(B) (2016) bears on this analysis.”
State v. Gaydas, 766 P.2d 629 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “In Arizona, it is not a defense to conspiracy that the defendant's only co-conspirator did not have the requisite intent, such as when the only co-conspirator is a police officer.”
State v. Chan, 935 P.2d 850 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996). “section 13-1006 which precludes the defense that the person whom the defendant abetted could not be guilty of the crime.”
State v. Bass, 31 P.3d 857 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 5× “Arizona recognizes unilateral conspiracies under those circumstances set forth in A.R.S. § 13-1006. The circumstance set forth in § 13-1006(A)(1) applies here.”
Wright v. Hon. gates/state (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “3 I do not believe that the majority’s reference to A.R.S. § 13-1006(B) (2016) bears on this analysis.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1006(A) — 1 case
State v. Ortiz, 639 P.2d 1020 (Ariz. 1981). “A.R.S. § 13-1006(A) provides: “It is not a defense to a prosecution for * * * conspiracy * * * that a person * * with whom the defendant conspired could not be guilty of committing the offense because: * * * (2) Such person is not criminally responsible as defined in chapter 5…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1006(A)(1) — 1 case
State v. Bass, 31 P.3d 857 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). “Arizona recognizes unilateral conspiracies under those circumstances set forth in A.R.S. § 13-1006. The circumstance set forth in § 13-1006(A)(1) applies here.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1006(A)(3) — 1 case
State v. Felkins, 749 P.2d 946 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988). “A.R.S. § 13-1006 provides: A. It is not a defense to a prosecution for solicitation, conspiracy or facilitation that a person solicited, facilitated or with whom the defendant conspired could not be guilty of committing the offense because: 1.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1006(B) — 5 cases
State v. Barragan-Sierra, 196 P.3d 879 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “See A.R.S. § 13-1006(B). These underlying principles distinguish this ease from Cota .”
We Are Am. v. Maricopa Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 297 F.R.D. 373 (D. Ariz. 2013). “Defendants also point out that A.R.S. § 13-1006(B) recognizes that a person may commit conspiracy to commit an offense, even if that person cannot be convicted of the offense itself.”
State v. Felkins, 749 P.2d 946 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988). “A.R.S. § 13-1006 provides: A. It is not a defense to a prosecution for solicitation, conspiracy or facilitation that a person solicited, facilitated or with whom the defendant conspired could not be guilty of committing the offense because: 1.”
Wright v. Hon. gates/state, 382 P.3d 83 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “3 I do not believe that the majority’s reference to A.R.S. § 13-1006(B) (2016) bears on this analysis.”
Wright v. Hon. gates/state (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “3 I do not believe that the majority’s reference to A.R.S. § 13-1006(B) (2016) bears on this analysis.”
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.