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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-115 (2026)

Presumption of innocence and benefit of doubt; degrees of guilt

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

A. A defendant in a criminal action is presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved, and in case of a reasonable doubt whether his guilt is satisfactorily shown, he is entitled to be acquitted.

B. When it appears that a defendant has committed a crime or public offense, and there is reasonable ground of doubt in which of two or more degrees he is guilty, he may be convicted of the lowest of such degrees only.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1982–2022 · leading case: State v. Mathers, 796 P.2d 866 (Ariz. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Mathers, 796 P.2d 866 (Ariz. 1990). · cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 13-115(A). This doctrine, universal in American law, requires the factfinder *67 to rationally apply the reasonable doubt standard to the facts in evidence.”
State v. Casey, 71 P.3d 351 (Ariz. 2003). · cites it 3× “The codification of that requirement has survived to date and is now found in A.R.S. § 13-115. See 1977 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch.”
State v. Eddington, 244 P.3d 76 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 4× “The jury was instructed pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-115(B) as follows: "If you determine that the defendant is guilty of either second degree murder or manslaughter by sudden quarrel or heat of passion but you have a reasonable doubt as to which it was, you must find the defendant…”
State v. Hunter, 688 P.2d 980 (Ariz. 1984). · cites it 2× “2d 394, 397 (1960); see A.R.S. § 13-115(A). Thus, when self-defense is claimed, the defendant need not prove that he properly acted in self-defense, but merely must present evidence sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt about whether his conduct was justified.”
State v. Garcia, 202 P.3d 514 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “We decline lo consider Garcia's argumenl, raised for the first time in his reply brief, that "[l]he sequential instruction approved in LeBlanc violates” the provisions of A.R.S. § 13-115(B). See State v. Ruggiero, 211 Ariz.”
State v. Miller, 658 P.2d 808 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 3× “The only argument made with regard to these instructions is that they are from A.R.S. § 13-115 and A.R.S. § 13-1105(B), and were therefore appropriate law for the instruction of the jury.”
State v. Raimonde (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 4× “” The court further instructed the jury in accordance with A.R.S. § 13-115(B) that if it determined that Raimonde was guilty of either second-degree murder or manslaughter, “but you have a reasonable doubt as to which it was, you must find the Defendant guilty of manslaughter.”
State v. Ruelas (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “2, § 23; see A.R.S. §§ 13-115(A), 21-102(A); see State v.”
State v. Eddington, 244 P.3d 76 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “The jury was instructed pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-115(B) as follows: "If you determine that the defendant is guilty of either second degree murder or manslaughter by sudden quarrel or heat of passion but you have a reasonable doubt as to which it was, you must find the defendant…”
State v. Yancy (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “” A.R.S. §§ 13-115(A), -1201(A). A class one misdemeanor offense of endangerment, however, includes “all other cases” not involving a “substantial risk of imminent death.”
State of Arizona v. Douglas Lee Eddington (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “The jury was instructed pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-115(B) as follows: “If you determine that the defendant is guilty of either second degree murder or manslaughter by sudden quarrel or heat of passion but you have a reasonable doubt as to which it was, you must find the defendant…”
State of Arizona v. Robert Carlos Garcia (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “HOWARD, Presiding Judge JOHN PELANDER, Chief Judge 2 We decline to consider Garcia’s argument, raised for the first time in his reply brief, that “[t]he sequential instruction approved in LeBlanc violates” the provisions of A.R.S. § 13-115(B). See State v. Ruggiero, 211 Ariz.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-115(A) — 5 cases
State v. Mathers, 796 P.2d 866 (Ariz. 1990). “A.R.S. § 13-115(A). This doctrine, universal in American law, requires the factfinder *67 to rationally apply the reasonable doubt standard to the facts in evidence.”
State v. Hunter, 688 P.2d 980 (Ariz. 1984). “2d 394, 397 (1960); see A.R.S. § 13-115(A). Thus, when self-defense is claimed, the defendant need not prove that he properly acted in self-defense, but merely must present evidence sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt about whether his conduct was justified.”
State v. Casey, 71 P.3d 351 (Ariz. 2003). “The codification of that requirement has survived to date and is now found in A.R.S. § 13-115. See 1977 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch.”
State v. Ruelas (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). “2, § 23; see A.R.S. §§ 13-115(A), 21-102(A); see State v.”
State v. Yancy (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “” A.R.S. §§ 13-115(A), -1201(A). A class one misdemeanor offense of endangerment, however, includes “all other cases” not involving a “substantial risk of imminent death.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-115(B) — 6 cases
State v. Eddington, 244 P.3d 76 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). “The jury was instructed pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-115(B) as follows: "If you determine that the defendant is guilty of either second degree murder or manslaughter by sudden quarrel or heat of passion but you have a reasonable doubt as to which it was, you must find the defendant…”
State v. Garcia, 202 P.3d 514 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “We decline lo consider Garcia's argumenl, raised for the first time in his reply brief, that "[l]he sequential instruction approved in LeBlanc violates” the provisions of A.R.S. § 13-115(B). See State v. Ruggiero, 211 Ariz.”
State v. Raimonde (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “” The court further instructed the jury in accordance with A.R.S. § 13-115(B) that if it determined that Raimonde was guilty of either second-degree murder or manslaughter, “but you have a reasonable doubt as to which it was, you must find the Defendant guilty of manslaughter.”
State v. Eddington, 244 P.3d 76 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). “The jury was instructed pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-115(B) as follows: "If you determine that the defendant is guilty of either second degree murder or manslaughter by sudden quarrel or heat of passion but you have a reasonable doubt as to which it was, you must find the defendant…”
State of Arizona v. Douglas Lee Eddington (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). “The jury was instructed pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-115(B) as follows: “If you determine that the defendant is guilty of either second degree murder or manslaughter by sudden quarrel or heat of passion but you have a reasonable doubt as to which it was, you must find the defendant…”
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.