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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-117 (2026)

Defendant as witness; no comment on failure to testify

✓ 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 or proceeding shall not be compelled to be a witness against himself, but may be a witness in his own behalf. If he offers himself as a witness in his own behalf, he may be cross-examined to the same extent and subject to the same rules as any other witness.

B. The defendant's neglect or refusal to be a witness in his own behalf shall not in any manner prejudice him, or be used against him on the trial or proceedings.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1980–2024 · leading case: State v. Christensen, 628 P.2d 580 (Ariz. 1981).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Christensen, 628 P.2d 580 (Ariz. 1981). · cites it 8× “Our statute, A.R.S. § 13-117, states: "Defendant as witness; no comment on failure to testify "A.”
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau, 372 P.3d 945 (Ariz. 2016). · cites it 2× “First, he asserts that the prosecutor “improperly asked the jurors to consider the fact that he maintained his innocence,” in violation of the Fifth Amendment; article 2, section 10 of the Arizona Constitution; and A.R.S. § 13-117(B). ¶ 206 After halting his mitigation evidence…”
State of Arizona v. Kenneth Wayne Thompson II, 502 P.3d 437 (Ariz. 2022). · cites it 2× “” The prosecutor then went on to discuss the lack of evidence of the emotional altercation that defense counsel asked the jury to assume took place.”
State v. Mata, 609 P.2d 48 (Ariz. 1980). · cites it 3× “Renumbered as § 13-117 by Laws 1977, Ch. 142, § 40, effective October 1, 1978.”
State v. Cook, 821 P.2d 731 (Ariz. 1991). · cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 13-117(B) (formerly § 13-163(B)).”
State v. Rutledge, 66 P.3d 50 (Ariz. 2003). · cites it 2× “Therefore, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion by admitting the videotaped interview of Jason.”
State v. Hughes, 969 P.2d 1184 (Ariz. 1998). · cites it 2× “2, § 10; A.R.S. § 13-117(B) (1989); State v. Schrock, 149 Ariz.”
State v. Lee, 944 P.2d 1204 (Ariz. 1997). · cites it 2× “In addition, defendant argues that refusal to limit cross-examination abrogated his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and to refuse to make self-incriminating statements.”
State v. Bracy, 703 P.2d 464 (Ariz. 1985). · cites it 2× “Such conduct also violates a state statute, A.R.S. § 13-117(B), which has been *535 raised to the level of a constitutional guarantee.”
State v. Schaaf, 819 P.2d 909 (Ariz. 1991). · cites it 2× “We held that the remark was inadvertent and immediately corrected.”
State of Arizona v. Julio Pedroza-Perez, 377 P.3d 311 (Ariz. 2016). · cites it 2× “V; see also A.R.S. § 13-117. The possibility that Pedroza-Pei*ez might have later elected not to testify, however, was not a proper reason to bar him from telling the jury about his anticipated evidence of duress—his central explanatory theme and only defense—in the opening…”
State of Arizona v. Christopher Michael Montoya, 554 P.3d 473 (Ariz. 2024). · cites it 3× “2, § 10; A.R.S. § 13-117(A). A prosecutor’s statement that “naturally and necessarily” draws the jury’s attention to a defendant’s failure to allocute is improper if it (1) “supports an unfavorable inference against the defendant,” and (2) operates “as a penalty for [a]…”
Show all 32 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-117(A) — 3 cases
State v. Lee, 944 P.2d 1204 (Ariz. 1997). “In addition, defendant argues that refusal to limit cross-examination abrogated his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and to refuse to make self-incriminating statements.”
State of Arizona v. Christopher Michael Montoya, 554 P.3d 473 (Ariz. 2024). “2, § 10; A.R.S. § 13-117(A). A prosecutor’s statement that “naturally and necessarily” draws the jury’s attention to a defendant’s failure to allocute is improper if it (1) “supports an unfavorable inference against the defendant,” and (2) operates “as a penalty for [a]…”
State v. McAnulty, 909 P.2d 466 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-117(B) — 25 cases
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau, 372 P.3d 945 (Ariz. 2016). “First, he asserts that the prosecutor “improperly asked the jurors to consider the fact that he maintained his innocence,” in violation of the Fifth Amendment; article 2, section 10 of the Arizona Constitution; and A.R.S. § 13-117(B). ¶ 206 After halting his mitigation evidence…”
State v. Christensen, 628 P.2d 580 (Ariz. 1981). “Our statute, A.R.S. § 13-117, states: "Defendant as witness; no comment on failure to testify "A.”
State of Arizona v. Kenneth Wayne Thompson II, 502 P.3d 437 (Ariz. 2022). “” The prosecutor then went on to discuss the lack of evidence of the emotional altercation that defense counsel asked the jury to assume took place.”
State v. Cook, 821 P.2d 731 (Ariz. 1991). “A.R.S. § 13-117(B) (formerly § 13-163(B)).”
State v. Rutledge, 66 P.3d 50 (Ariz. 2003). “Therefore, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion by admitting the videotaped interview of Jason.”
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.