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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-107 (2026)

Time limitations

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

13-107. Time limitations

A. A prosecution for any homicide, any conspiracy to commit homicide that results in the death of a person, any offense that is listed in chapter 14 or 35.1 of this title and that is a class 2 felony, any violent sexual assault pursuant to section 13-1423, any violation of section 13-2308.01, 13-2308.03 or 13-3212, any misuse of public monies or a felony involving falsification of public records or any attempt to commit an offense listed in this subsection may be commenced at any time.

B. Except as otherwise provided in this section and sections 28-672, 28-1381 and 28-1382, prosecutions for other offenses must be commenced within the following periods after actual discovery by the state or the political subdivision having jurisdiction of the offense or discovery by the state or the political subdivision that should have occurred with the exercise of reasonable diligence, whichever first occurs:

1. For a class 2 through a class 6 felony, seven years.

2. For a misdemeanor, one year.

3. For a petty offense, six months.

C. For the purposes of subsection B of this section, a prosecution is commenced when an indictment, information or complaint is filed.

D. The period of limitation does not run during any time when the accused is absent from the state or has no reasonably ascertainable place of abode within the state.

E. The period of limitation does not run for a serious offense as defined in section 13-706 during any time when the identity of the person who commits the offense or offenses is unknown.

F. The time limitation within which a prosecution of a class 6 felony shall commence shall be determined pursuant to subsection B, paragraph 1 of this section, irrespective of whether a court enters a judgment of conviction for or a prosecuting attorney designates the offense as a misdemeanor.

G. If a complaint, indictment or information filed before the period of limitation has expired is dismissed for any reason, a new prosecution may be commenced within six months after the dismissal becomes final even if the period of limitation has expired at the time of the dismissal or will expire within six months of the dismissal.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 48 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case: State v. Aguilar, 178 P.3d 497 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Aguilar, 178 P.3d 497 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 78× “¶ 1 In several recent cases, this court has addressed the meaning and effect of A.R.S. § 13-107, the statute of limitations that applies to criminal actions.”
State v. Jackson, 90 P.3d 793 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 33× “In 1997, the legislature amended A.R.S. § 13-107 by adding subsection (E), which states: "The period of limitation does not run for a serious offense as defined in [A.”
Taylor v. Cruikshank, 148 P.3d 84 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 27× “Although A.R.S. § 13-107 was amended in 1985, the only subsection amended was (F), a subsection not relevant to the issues at hand.”
State v. Gum, 153 P.3d 418 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 22× “¶ 6 The statute of limitations in effect when Gum committed the 1991 crimes, A.R.S. § 13-107 (1989), stated in relevant part: § 13-107.”
State v. Neese, 366 P.3d 561 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 13× “See AR.S. § 13-107 B 1. Although the Indictment was filed on March 15, 2005, well within the limitations period, the Attended Indictment naming Neese was filed in 2011, years after the statutory limitations period expired.”
Price v. Maxwell, 681 P.2d 384 (Ariz. 1984). · cites it 21× “A.R.S. § 13-107(B). The respondent magistrate denied the motion to dismiss holding that the provisions of A.”
Doe v. Roe, 955 P.2d 951 (Ariz. 1998). · cites it 4× “, A.R.S. § 13-107(B) (discovery rule applicable to criminal prosecutions).”
State v. Greenway, 823 P.2d 22 (Ariz. 1991). · cites it 4× “We believe our legislature, like the Maryland legislature, enacted A.R.S. § 13-107(F)(8) to allow "consideration of the death penalty under the egregious circumstances of multiple first degree murders.”
State of Arizona v. Pierre Banda, 307 P.3d 1009 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 6× “2 See A.R.S. § 13-107. Thus, even assuming counsel had been ineffective, Banda has not shown prejudice.”
Johnson v. Tucson City Court, 751 P.2d 600 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 20× “Section 13-107, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read: 13-107.”
In the Matter of Lisa M. Aubuchon, 309 P.3d 886 (Ariz. 2013). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 13-107(B)(2); State v. Jackson, 208 Ariz.”
State v. Lacy, 929 P.2d 1288 (Ariz. 1996). · cites it 4× “See A.R.S. § 13-107(A). The due process guarantee of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution also protects defendants from unreasonable delay.”
Show all 48 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-107(0) — 1 case
State v. Aguilar, 178 P.3d 497 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “¶ 1 In several recent cases, this court has addressed the meaning and effect of A.R.S. § 13-107, the statute of limitations that applies to criminal actions.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-107(A) — 10 cases
State v. Lacy, 929 P.2d 1288 (Ariz. 1996). “See A.R.S. § 13-107(A). The due process guarantee of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution also protects defendants from unreasonable delay.”
Taylor v. Cruikshank, 148 P.3d 84 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). “Although A.R.S. § 13-107 was amended in 1985, the only subsection amended was (F), a subsection not relevant to the issues at hand.”
State v. Aguilar, 178 P.3d 497 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “¶ 1 In several recent cases, this court has addressed the meaning and effect of A.R.S. § 13-107, the statute of limitations that applies to criminal actions.”
State of Arizona v. Pierre Banda, 307 P.3d 1009 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). “2 See A.R.S. § 13-107. Thus, even assuming counsel had been ineffective, Banda has not shown prejudice.”
Rider v. Garcia, 312 P.3d 113 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-107(B) — 18 cases
State v. Jackson, 90 P.3d 793 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). “In 1997, the legislature amended A.R.S. § 13-107 by adding subsection (E), which states: "The period of limitation does not run for a serious offense as defined in [A.”
Taylor v. Cruikshank, 148 P.3d 84 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). “Although A.R.S. § 13-107 was amended in 1985, the only subsection amended was (F), a subsection not relevant to the issues at hand.”
State v. Aguilar, 178 P.3d 497 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “¶ 1 In several recent cases, this court has addressed the meaning and effect of A.R.S. § 13-107, the statute of limitations that applies to criminal actions.”
Doe v. Roe, 955 P.2d 951 (Ariz. 1998). “, A.R.S. § 13-107(B) (discovery rule applicable to criminal prosecutions).”
State v. Mendoza, 823 P.2d 51 (Ariz. 1992).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-107(B)(1) — 11 cases
State v. Jackson, 90 P.3d 793 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). “In 1997, the legislature amended A.R.S. § 13-107 by adding subsection (E), which states: "The period of limitation does not run for a serious offense as defined in [A.”
State v. Aguilar, 178 P.3d 497 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “¶ 1 In several recent cases, this court has addressed the meaning and effect of A.R.S. § 13-107, the statute of limitations that applies to criminal actions.”
State v. Broughton, 752 P.2d 483 (Ariz. 1988).
State v. Gum, 153 P.3d 418 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). “¶ 6 The statute of limitations in effect when Gum committed the 1991 crimes, A.R.S. § 13-107 (1989), stated in relevant part: § 13-107.”
Martin v. Superior Court, 659 P.2d 652 (Ariz. 1983).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-107(B)(2) — 4 cases
In the Matter of Lisa M. Aubuchon, 309 P.3d 886 (Ariz. 2013). “A.R.S. § 13-107(B)(2); State v. Jackson, 208 Ariz.”
Uhlig v. Lindberg, 943 P.2d 840 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
Lee v. Superior Court, 840 P.2d 296 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992).
State v. Hantman Riedel, 65 P.3d 974 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-107(C) — 7 cases
State v. Jackson, 90 P.3d 793 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). “In 1997, the legislature amended A.R.S. § 13-107 by adding subsection (E), which states: "The period of limitation does not run for a serious offense as defined in [A.”
State v. Young, 720 P.2d 965 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
Taylor v. Cruikshank, 148 P.3d 84 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). “Although A.R.S. § 13-107 was amended in 1985, the only subsection amended was (F), a subsection not relevant to the issues at hand.”
State v. Lemming, 937 P.2d 381 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
State of Arizona v. John William Jackson (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-107(D) — 4 cases
State v. Aguilar, 178 P.3d 497 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “¶ 1 In several recent cases, this court has addressed the meaning and effect of A.R.S. § 13-107, the statute of limitations that applies to criminal actions.”
State v. Gum, 153 P.3d 418 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). “¶ 6 The statute of limitations in effect when Gum committed the 1991 crimes, A.R.S. § 13-107 (1989), stated in relevant part: § 13-107.”
State of Arizona v. Roberto Rosadillo Aguilar (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
State v. Harwood (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-107(E) — 8 cases
State v. Aguilar, 178 P.3d 497 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “¶ 1 In several recent cases, this court has addressed the meaning and effect of A.R.S. § 13-107, the statute of limitations that applies to criminal actions.”
State v. Gum, 153 P.3d 418 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). “¶ 6 The statute of limitations in effect when Gum committed the 1991 crimes, A.R.S. § 13-107 (1989), stated in relevant part: § 13-107.”
State v. Jackson, 90 P.3d 793 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). “In 1997, the legislature amended A.R.S. § 13-107 by adding subsection (E), which states: "The period of limitation does not run for a serious offense as defined in [A.”
Price v. Maxwell, 681 P.2d 384 (Ariz. 1984). “A.R.S. § 13-107(B). The respondent magistrate denied the motion to dismiss holding that the provisions of A.”
State v. Escobar-Mendez, 986 P.2d 227 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-107(F) — 6 cases
Price v. Maxwell, 681 P.2d 384 (Ariz. 1984). “A.R.S. § 13-107(B). The respondent magistrate denied the motion to dismiss holding that the provisions of A.”
Johnson v. Tucson City Court, 751 P.2d 600 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988). “Section 13-107, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read: 13-107.”
Lee v. Superior Court, 840 P.2d 296 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992).
Uhlig v. Lindberg, 943 P.2d 840 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
Price v. Maxwell, 681 P.2d 466 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-107(F)(8) — 1 case
State v. Greenway, 823 P.2d 22 (Ariz. 1991). “We believe our legislature, like the Maryland legislature, enacted A.R.S. § 13-107(F)(8) to allow "consideration of the death penalty under the egregious circumstances of multiple first degree murders.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-107(G) — 1 case
State v. Hantman Riedel, 65 P.3d 974 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
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.