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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-103 (2026)

Abolition of common law offenses and affirmative defenses; definition

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

A. All common law offenses and affirmative defenses are abolished. No conduct or omission constitutes an offense or an affirmative defense unless it is an offense or an affirmative defense under this title or under another statute or ordinance.

B. For the purposes of this section, "affirmative defense" means a defense that is offered and that attempts to excuse the criminal actions of the accused or another person for whose actions the accused may be deemed to be accountable. Affirmative defense does not include any justification defense pursuant to chapter 4 of this title or any defense that either denies an element of the offense charged or denies responsibility, including alibi, misidentification or lack of intent.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 64 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1957–2025 · leading case: State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle, 379 P.3d 197 (Ariz. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle, 379 P.3d 197 (Ariz. 2016). · cites it 29× “” A.R.S. § 13-103(A). The legislature is empowered to define what constitutes a crime in this state and to prescribe the punishment for criminal offenses.”
State v. Bayardi, 281 P.3d 1063 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 22× “Because successful invocation of 28-1381(D) does not turn on whether the State has proven the elements of a 28-1381(A)(3) charge beyond a reasonable doubt, we conclude 28-1381(D) is not a defense denying an element or responsibility within the meaning of A.R.S. § 13-103. ii.…”
State v. Far West Water & Sewer Inc., 228 P.3d 909 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 11× “By allowing Far West to be prosecuted under general criminal laws for failure to maintain a safe workplace, the trial court violated A.R.S. § 13-103(A), which abolished all common law criminal offenses; 3.”
State v. McKeon, 38 P.3d 1236 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 10× “"); see also A.R.S. § 13-103(A) (1997) ("All common law .”
Susan Ryan v. napier/klein, 425 P.3d 230 (Ariz. 2018). · cites it 4× “" A.R.S. § 13-103(A), (B). Removing justification defenses from that definition in criminal cases does not impact the common law treatment of justification defenses in civil cases as affirmative defenses.”
State of Arizona v. Maverick Kemp Gray, 372 P.3d 999 (Ariz. 2016). · cites it 8× “See A.R.S. § 13-103(A); Engle v. State, 53 Ariz.”
Vo v. Superior Court, 836 P.2d 408 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 8× “” A.R.S. § 13-103. Because of this enactment, Arizona is a “code state” as far as its criminal law is concerned.”
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle, 358 P.3d 639 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 11× “At that time, § 13-103(B) provided: For the purposes of this section, “affirmative defense” means a defense that is offered and that attempts to justify the criminal actions of the accused or another person for whose actions the accused may be deemed to be accountable.”
State v. Risher, 574 P.2d 460 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 20× “As was stated in Raffaele : “A.R.S. § 13-103 answers the question of when an ‘open-end offense’ becomes a misdemeanor.”
City Court of Phoenix v. State ex rel. Baumert, 565 P.2d 531 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 16× “§ 13-245(A)(7), when the charge has been designated a misdemeanor by filing it in city court pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-103 D. For the reasons stated below we hold that the city court does not have such jurisdiction.”
State v. Edmisten, 207 P.3d 770 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 3× “See A.R.S. § 13-103(A); 1997 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch.”
May v. Ryan, 245 F. Supp. 3d 1145 (D. Ariz. 2017). · cites it 2× “See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-103 (2006). The Hollé I court held that for this reason the state still must prove sexual intent beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Show all 64 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-103(A) — 19 cases
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle, 379 P.3d 197 (Ariz. 2016). “” A.R.S. § 13-103(A). The legislature is empowered to define what constitutes a crime in this state and to prescribe the punishment for criminal offenses.”
State v. Far West Water & Sewer Inc., 228 P.3d 909 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). “By allowing Far West to be prosecuted under general criminal laws for failure to maintain a safe workplace, the trial court violated A.R.S. § 13-103(A), which abolished all common law criminal offenses; 3.”
State v. McKeon, 38 P.3d 1236 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). “"); see also A.R.S. § 13-103(A) (1997) ("All common law .”
Susan Ryan v. napier/klein, 425 P.3d 230 (Ariz. 2018). “" A.R.S. § 13-103(A), (B). Removing justification defenses from that definition in criminal cases does not impact the common law treatment of justification defenses in civil cases as affirmative defenses.”
State of Arizona v. Maverick Kemp Gray, 372 P.3d 999 (Ariz. 2016). “See A.R.S. § 13-103(A); Engle v. State, 53 Ariz.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-103(B) — 22 cases
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle, 379 P.3d 197 (Ariz. 2016). “” A.R.S. § 13-103(A). The legislature is empowered to define what constitutes a crime in this state and to prescribe the punishment for criminal offenses.”
State v. Bayardi, 281 P.3d 1063 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). “Because successful invocation of 28-1381(D) does not turn on whether the State has proven the elements of a 28-1381(A)(3) charge beyond a reasonable doubt, we conclude 28-1381(D) is not a defense denying an element or responsibility within the meaning of A.R.S. § 13-103. ii.…”
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle, 358 P.3d 639 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). “At that time, § 13-103(B) provided: For the purposes of this section, “affirmative defense” means a defense that is offered and that attempts to justify the criminal actions of the accused or another person for whose actions the accused may be deemed to be accountable.”
State v. Risher, 574 P.2d 460 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977). “As was stated in Raffaele : “A.R.S. § 13-103 answers the question of when an ‘open-end offense’ becomes a misdemeanor.”
Susan Ryan v. napier/klein, 425 P.3d 230 (Ariz. 2018). “" A.R.S. § 13-103(A), (B). Removing justification defenses from that definition in criminal cases does not impact the common law treatment of justification defenses in civil cases as affirmative defenses.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-103(D) — 1 case
City Court of Phoenix v. State ex rel. Baumert, 565 P.2d 531 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977). “§ 13-245(A)(7), when the charge has been designated a misdemeanor by filing it in city court pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-103 D. For the reasons stated below we hold that the city court does not have such jurisdiction.”
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.