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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-101 (2026)

Purposes

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

It is declared that the public policy of this state and the general purposes of the provisions of this title are:

1. To proscribe conduct that unjustifiably and inexcusably causes or threatens substantial harm to individual or public interests;

2. To give fair warning of the nature of the conduct proscribed and of the sentences authorized upon conviction;

3. To define the act or omission and the accompanying mental state which constitute each offense and limit the condemnation of conduct as criminal when it does not fall within the purposes set forth;

4. To differentiate on reasonable grounds between serious and minor offenses and to prescribe proportionate penalties for each;

5. To insure the public safety by preventing the commission of offenses through the deterrent influence of the sentences authorized;

6. To impose just and deserved punishment on those whose conduct threatens the public peace; and

7. To promote truth and accountability in sentencing.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 76 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1965–2026 · leading case: State v. Thompson, 65 P.3d 420 (Ariz. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Thompson, 65 P.3d 420 (Ariz. 2003). · cites it 10× “An offense so defined does not "give fair warning" whether conduct will be punished as first degree murder rather than second, see A.R.S. § 13-101(2), nor does it "differentiate on reasonable grounds between [first and second degree murder].”
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle, 379 P.3d 197 (Ariz. 2016). · cites it 4× “” A.R.S. § 13-101(2). And “[p]enal statutes shall be construed according to 3 STATE V.”
State v. Atwood, 832 P.2d 593 (Ariz. 1992). · cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 13-101(6) ("It is declared that the public policy of this state and the general purposes of the provisions of [Arizona's Criminal Code] are: .”
Vo v. Superior Court, 836 P.2d 408 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 6× “Rules of Criminal Statutory Construction in Arizona The legislature has abolished the common law rule of strict construction of criminal laws, and has provided that criminal laws “must be construed according to the fair meaning of their terms to promote justice and effect the…”
State v. Dixon, 622 P.2d 501 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “Alternatively, appellant argues that the passage of the new criminal code, A.R.S. § 13-101 et seq., is void as unconstitutional and could not be used to determine his right to a 12-person jury.”
Tracy v. Superior Court, 810 P.2d 1030 (Ariz. 1991). · cites it 6× “A.R.S. § 13-101 reads in relevant part: It is declared that the public policy of this state and the general purposes of the provisions of this title are: 1.”
State v. Lopez, 847 P.2d 1078 (Ariz. 1992). · cites it 4× “2d 279 (1980); A.R.S. § 13-101. The power to define conduct that will not be tolerated in an ordered society and to provide punishment for those who engage in such conduct resides with the legislature.”
David G. v. Pollard Ex Rel. Cnty. of Pima, 86 P.3d 364 (Ariz. 2004). · cites it 4× “2d 279, 280 (1980) (citing A.R.S. § 13-101). In addition, rehabilitation is not an express sentencing policy of our criminal code; rather the policy is “[t]o impose just and deserved punishment on those whose conduct threatens the public *313 peace.”
State v. Fristoe, 658 P.2d 825 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 4× “We believe that such a conclusion conflicts with the stated legislative purposes for adopting the new criminal code as set out at A.R.S. § 13-101. 3 Further, A.R.S. § 13-201 states: The minimum requirement for criminal liability is the performance by a person of conduct which…”
State v. Garcia, 685 P.2d 734 (Ariz. 1984). · cites it 4× “Section 13-101 states, in part, It is declared that the public policy of this state and the general purposes of the provisions of this title are: * * * * * * 4.”
State of Arizona Ex Rel. Polk v. Hon. campbell/francis Frederick Kraps, 372 P.3d 929 (Ariz. 2016). · cites it 2× “Cf AR.S. § 13-101(2)(deelaring the public policy of this state is “[t]o give fair warning of the nature of the conduct proscribed and of the sentences authorized upon conviction.”
State v. Perkins, 699 P.2d 364 (Ariz. 1985). · cites it 4× “2d 775, 788 (1984); A.R.S. § 13-101(5) (it is the public policy of this state to “insure the public safety by preventing the commission of offenses through the deterrent influence of the sentences authorized .”
Show all 76 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-101(1) — 4 cases
Marriage of Higgins v. Higgins, 981 P.2d 134 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
State v. Carrasco, 33 P.3d 791 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
State v. Price, 145 P.3d 647 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
State of Arizona v. Hon. marner/haniffa (Ariz. 2026).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-101(2) — 17 cases
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle, 379 P.3d 197 (Ariz. 2016). “” A.R.S. § 13-101(2). And “[p]enal statutes shall be construed according to 3 STATE V.”
State v. Thompson, 65 P.3d 420 (Ariz. 2003). “An offense so defined does not "give fair warning" whether conduct will be punished as first degree murder rather than second, see A.R.S. § 13-101(2), nor does it "differentiate on reasonable grounds between [first and second degree murder].”
Vo v. Superior Court, 836 P.2d 408 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). “Rules of Criminal Statutory Construction in Arizona The legislature has abolished the common law rule of strict construction of criminal laws, and has provided that criminal laws “must be construed according to the fair meaning of their terms to promote justice and effect the…”
State of Arizona Ex Rel. Polk v. Hon. campbell/francis Frederick Kraps, 372 P.3d 929 (Ariz. 2016). “Cf AR.S. § 13-101(2)(deelaring the public policy of this state is “[t]o give fair warning of the nature of the conduct proscribed and of the sentences authorized upon conviction.”
State v. Payne, 225 P.3d 1131 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-101(3) — 6 cases
State v. Thompson, 65 P.3d 420 (Ariz. 2003). “An offense so defined does not "give fair warning" whether conduct will be punished as first degree murder rather than second, see A.R.S. § 13-101(2), nor does it "differentiate on reasonable grounds between [first and second degree murder].”
State v. Garcia, 685 P.2d 734 (Ariz. 1984). “Section 13-101 states, in part, It is declared that the public policy of this state and the general purposes of the provisions of this title are: * * * * * * 4.”
State v. Williams, 854 P.2d 131 (Ariz. 1993).
State v. Hinden, 233 P.3d 621 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
State v. Wolter, 3 P.3d 1110 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-101(4) — 11 cases
State v. Thompson, 65 P.3d 420 (Ariz. 2003). “An offense so defined does not "give fair warning" whether conduct will be punished as first degree murder rather than second, see A.R.S. § 13-101(2), nor does it "differentiate on reasonable grounds between [first and second degree murder].”
State v. George, 79 P.3d 1050 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
State v. Moerman, 895 P.2d 1018 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994).
State v. Dansdill, 443 P.3d 990 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
State v. Estrada, 4 P.3d 438 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-101(5) — 2 cases
State v. Perkins, 699 P.2d 364 (Ariz. 1985). “2d 775, 788 (1984); A.R.S. § 13-101(5) (it is the public policy of this state to “insure the public safety by preventing the commission of offenses through the deterrent influence of the sentences authorized .”
State v. Agundez-Martinez, 524 P.3d 832 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-101(6) — 8 cases
State v. Atwood, 832 P.2d 593 (Ariz. 1992). “A.R.S. § 13-101(6) ("It is declared that the public policy of this state and the general purposes of the provisions of [Arizona's Criminal Code] are: .”
State v. Dixon, 622 P.2d 501 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). “Alternatively, appellant argues that the passage of the new criminal code, A.R.S. § 13-101 et seq., is void as unconstitutional and could not be used to determine his right to a 12-person jury.”
David G. v. Pollard Ex Rel. Cnty. of Pima, 86 P.3d 364 (Ariz. 2004). “2d 279, 280 (1980) (citing A.R.S. § 13-101). In addition, rehabilitation is not an express sentencing policy of our criminal code; rather the policy is “[t]o impose just and deserved punishment on those whose conduct threatens the public *313 peace.”
State v. Perkins, 699 P.2d 364 (Ariz. 1985). “2d 775, 788 (1984); A.R.S. § 13-101(5) (it is the public policy of this state to “insure the public safety by preventing the commission of offenses through the deterrent influence of the sentences authorized .”
State v. Poehnelt, 722 P.2d 304 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-101(7) — 1 case
Michael J. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 979 P.2d 1024 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
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.