A. Criminal prosecutions shall be tried in the county in which conduct constituting any element of the offense or a result of such conduct occurred, unless otherwise provided by law.
B. The following special provisions apply:
1. If conduct constituting an element of an offense or a result constituting an element of an offense occurs in two or more counties, trial of the offense may be held in any of the counties concerned; or
2. A person who in one county solicits, aids, abets or attempts to aid another in the planning or commission of an offense in another county may be tried for the offense in either county; or
3. If an offense is committed in transit and it cannot readily be determined in which county the offense was committed, trial of the offense may be held in any county through or over which the transit occurred; or
4. If the cause of death is inflicted in one county and death ensues in another county, trial of the offense may be held in either county. If the cause of death is inflicted in one county and death ensues out of this state, trial of the offense shall be in the county where the cause was inflicted. If the body of a homicide victim is found in a county, it is presumed that the cause of death was inflicted in that county; or
5. If an offense is committed on the boundary of two or more counties or within one mile of such boundary, trial of the offense may be held in any of the counties concerned; or
6. A person who obtains property unlawfully may be tried in any county in which such person exerts control over the property; or
7. A person who commits a preparatory offense may be tried in any county in which any act that is an element of the offense, including the agreement in conspiracy, is committed.
C. If an offense has been committed within this state and it cannot readily be determined within which county or counties the commission took place, trial may be held in the county in which the defendant resides or, if the defendant has no fixed residence, in the county in which the defendant is apprehended or to which the defendant is extradited.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
25
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1971–2025 · leading case:
State v. Lambright, 673 P.2d 1 (Ariz. 1983).
State v. Lambright, 673 P.2d 1 (Ariz. 1983).
· cites it 14× “* * *" This provision is carried into effect by A.R.S. § 13-109 which specifically provides, *71 § 13-109.”
State v. Comer, 799 P.2d 333 (Ariz. 1990).
· cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 13-109 relating to venue provides in part: A.”
State v. Detrich, 873 P.2d 1302 (Ariz. 1994).
· cites it 4× “The flight instruction—even assuming it was improper— does not rise to the level of fundamental error.”
State v. Poland, 645 P.2d 784 (Ariz. 1982).
· cites it 2× “See present A.R.S. § 13-109(A). In dismissing a Pima County indictment for attempted murder for hire, where the payment for the murder was made in Pinal County, our Court of Appeals stated: “We therefore hold that under A.”
State v. Michael Apelt, 861 P.2d 634 (Ariz. 1993).
· cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 13-109(A) (“Criminal prosecutions shall be tried in the county in which conduct constituting any element of the offense or a result of such conduct occurred, unless otherwise provided by law.”
State v. Swainston, 676 P.2d 1153 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 6× “The facts giving rise to the driving while intoxicated count occurred in Maricopa County, while the other two offenses occurred in Pinal County.”
State v. Kemp, 912 P.2d 1281 (Ariz. 1996).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 13-109. The State proved this, so error, if any, would be harmless.”
State v. Luzanilla, 861 P.2d 682 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 13-109(A). Proper venue is a jurisdictional requirement in criminal prosecutions, and the state must prove it by a preponderance of the evidence.”
State v. Mohr, 724 P.2d 1233 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 2× “Venue of criminal prosecutions in Arizona is controlled by the Arizona Constitution, which provides: In criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right .”
State v. Agnew, 647 P.2d 1165 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 2× “” The state has conceded that this statute, unlike its current counterpart, A.R.S. § 13-109(B)(6), could establish venue only in a prosecution for one or more of the specifically enumerated offenses.”
State v. Lopez, 845 P.2d 478 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 13-109(B)(1). JUROR MISCONDUCT Lopez next argues he was entitled to a new trial because a juror wilfully *557 failed to respond to a direct question posed during voir dire examination, citing Ariz.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-109(A) — 10 cases
State v. Poland, 645 P.2d 784 (Ariz. 1982).
“See present A.R.S. § 13-109(A). In dismissing a Pima County indictment for attempted murder for hire, where the payment for the murder was made in Pinal County, our Court of Appeals stated: “We therefore hold that under A.”
State v. Michael Apelt, 861 P.2d 634 (Ariz. 1993).
“See A.R.S. § 13-109(A) (“Criminal prosecutions shall be tried in the county in which conduct constituting any element of the offense or a result of such conduct occurred, unless otherwise provided by law.”
State v. Luzanilla, 861 P.2d 682 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
“A.R.S. § 13-109(A). Proper venue is a jurisdictional requirement in criminal prosecutions, and the state must prove it by a preponderance of the evidence.”
State v. Mohr, 724 P.2d 1233 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
“Venue of criminal prosecutions in Arizona is controlled by the Arizona Constitution, which provides: In criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right .”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-109(B)(1) — 2 cases
State v. Lopez, 845 P.2d 478 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992).
“A.R.S. § 13-109(B)(1). JUROR MISCONDUCT Lopez next argues he was entitled to a new trial because a juror wilfully *557 failed to respond to a direct question posed during voir dire examination, citing Ariz.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-109(B)(5) — 2 cases
State v. Swainston, 676 P.2d 1153 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).
“The facts giving rise to the driving while intoxicated count occurred in Maricopa County, while the other two offenses occurred in Pinal County.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-109(B)(6) — 1 case
State v. Agnew, 647 P.2d 1165 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982).
“” The state has conceded that this statute, unlike its current counterpart, A.R.S. § 13-109(B)(6), could establish venue only in a prosecution for one or more of the specifically enumerated offenses.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-109(B)(7) — 1 case
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.