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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1101 (2026)

Definitions

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

In this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires:

1. "Premeditation" means that the defendant acts with either the intention or the knowledge that he will kill another human being, when such intention or knowledge precedes the killing by any length of time to permit reflection. Proof of actual reflection is not required, but an act is not done with premeditation if it is the instant effect of a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.

2. "Homicide" means first degree murder, second degree murder, manslaughter or negligent homicide.

3. "Person" means a human being.

4. "Adequate provocation" means conduct or circumstances sufficient to deprive a reasonable person of self-control.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 108 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · 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 55× “See A.R.S. § 13-1101(1) (2001). We accepted review to consider the constitutionality of the statute and to clarify both the meaning of premeditation and the State's burden of proof.”
Vo v. Superior Court, 836 P.2d 408 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 14× “Compare A.R.S. § 13-1101 (1977) (homicide) with A.”
State v. Thompson, 34 P.3d 382 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 28× “A.R.S. § 13-1101(1) (1978). Read literally, this statute defined premeditation in terms only of the passage of time but did not quantify the amount of time that must elapse for premeditation to have occurred.”
State of Arizona v. Christopher Mathew Payne, 314 P.3d 1239 (Ariz. 2013). · cites it 4× “Gonzales testified that while Ariana and Tyler were initially placed in the closet only while Payne was away from home and for disciplinary purposes, after about a month, Payne left them in the closet permanently, feeding them irregularly, then not at all.”
State v. Brewer, 826 P.2d 783 (Ariz. 1992). · cites it 8× “Was the 22-week-old unborn fetus a human being for the purposes of A.R.S. § 13-1101(3)? We will address those issues necessary to our decision, but not necessarily in the order set forth above.”
State v. Greenway, 823 P.2d 22 (Ariz. 1991). · cites it 8× “The last aggravating factor found by the trial judge was that "the defendant has been convicted of one or more other homicides as defined in A.R.S. § 13-1101, which were committed during the commission of the offense.”
State v. Cecil, 36 P.3d 1224 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 30× “A.R.S. § 13-1101 (1978). At that time, the Ramirez requirement of actual reflection had not yet been grafted into the statute.”
State v. Ramirez, 945 P.2d 376 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 15× “1, 1978, with A.R.S. §§ 13-1101(1),-1105, amended by Laws 1977, ch.”
State v. Cook, 821 P.2d 731 (Ariz. 1991). · cites it 10× “Conviction on One Homicide Committed During the Commission of Another The trial court found as an aggravating circumstance that Cook had "been convicted of one or more other homicides, as defined in § 13-1101, which were committed during the commission of the offense.”
State v. Dann, 74 P.3d 231 (Ariz. 2003). · cites it 3× “” A.R.S. § 13-1101(1). The trial judge, however, declined to include the quoted clause and instead gave the following instruction on premeditation, to which Dann also objected: Premeditation means: Number one, that a person either intends or knows that his or her conduct will…”
State v. Hampton, 140 P.3d 950 (Ariz. 2006). · cites it 4× “§ 13—703(F)(8) (referring to “homicides, as defined in § 13-1101”); A.R.S. § 13-1101 (defining “homicide” as first degree murder, second degree murder, manslaughter or negligent homicide); A.”
State v. Lavers, 814 P.2d 333 (Ariz. 1991). · cites it 4× “" A.R.S. § 13-1101(1) (emphasis added). Because the plain language of these statutes defining first degree murder is in the disjunctive, first degree murder may be based on either intentional or knowing conduct.”
Show all 108 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1101(1) — 64 cases
State v. Thompson, 65 P.3d 420 (Ariz. 2003). “See A.R.S. § 13-1101(1) (2001). We accepted review to consider the constitutionality of the statute and to clarify both the meaning of premeditation and the State's burden of proof.”
State of Arizona v. Christopher Mathew Payne, 314 P.3d 1239 (Ariz. 2013). “Gonzales testified that while Ariana and Tyler were initially placed in the closet only while Payne was away from home and for disciplinary purposes, after about a month, Payne left them in the closet permanently, feeding them irregularly, then not at all.”
State v. Thompson, 34 P.3d 382 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). “A.R.S. § 13-1101(1) (1978). Read literally, this statute defined premeditation in terms only of the passage of time but did not quantify the amount of time that must elapse for premeditation to have occurred.”
State v. Ramirez, 945 P.2d 376 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998). “1, 1978, with A.R.S. §§ 13-1101(1),-1105, amended by Laws 1977, ch.”
State v. Cecil, 36 P.3d 1224 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). “A.R.S. § 13-1101 (1978). At that time, the Ramirez requirement of actual reflection had not yet been grafted into the statute.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1101(1)(1978) — 1 case
State v. Thompson, 34 P.3d 382 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). “A.R.S. § 13-1101(1) (1978). Read literally, this statute defined premeditation in terms only of the passage of time but did not quantify the amount of time that must elapse for premeditation to have occurred.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1101(1)(1998) — 1 case
State v. Thompson, 34 P.3d 382 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). “A.R.S. § 13-1101(1) (1978). Read literally, this statute defined premeditation in terms only of the passage of time but did not quantify the amount of time that must elapse for premeditation to have occurred.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1101(2) — 6 cases
State v. Encinas, 647 P.2d 624 (Ariz. 1982).
State v. Sosnowicz, 270 P.3d 917 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
State v. Jessen, 633 P.2d 410 (Ariz. 1981).
State v. Berndt, 672 P.2d 1311 (Ariz. 1983).
State of Arizona v. Christepher E. Lua, 350 P.3d 805 (Ariz. 2015).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1101(3) — 4 cases
Vo v. Superior Court, 836 P.2d 408 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). “Compare A.R.S. § 13-1101 (1977) (homicide) with A.”
State v. Brewer, 826 P.2d 783 (Ariz. 1992). “Was the 22-week-old unborn fetus a human being for the purposes of A.R.S. § 13-1101(3)? We will address those issues necessary to our decision, but not necessarily in the order set forth above.”
In Re the Appeal in Pima Cnty. Juv. Severance Action No. S-120171, 905 P.2d 555 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
State v. Cotton, 5 P.3d 918 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1101(4) — 8 cases
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa Cnty., Juv. Action No. JV-506561, 893 P.2d 60 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994).
State v. Gomez, 123 P.3d 1131 (Ariz. 2005).
State v. Vogel, 85 P.3d 497 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
State of Arizona v. Larry James Fournier, 535 P.3d 35 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
State of Arizona v. Larry James Fournier (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1101(C) — 1 case
Stange v. Johns, Jr. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1101(l) — 1 case
State v. Thompson, 65 P.3d 420 (Ariz. 2003). “See A.R.S. § 13-1101(1) (2001). We accepted review to consider the constitutionality of the statute and to clarify both the meaning of premeditation and the State's burden of proof.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1101(l)(1978) — 1 case
State v. Thompson, 34 P.3d 382 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). “A.R.S. § 13-1101(1) (1978). Read literally, this statute defined premeditation in terms only of the passage of time but did not quantify the amount of time that must elapse for premeditation to have occurred.”
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.