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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1802 (2026)

Theft; classification; definitions

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

A. A person commits theft if, without lawful authority, the person knowingly:

1. Controls property of another with the intent to deprive the other person of such property; or

2. Converts for an unauthorized term or use services or property of another entrusted to the defendant or placed in the defendant's possession for a limited, authorized term or use; or

3. Obtains services or property of another by means of any material misrepresentation with intent to deprive the other person of such property or services; or

4. Comes into control of lost, mislaid or misdelivered property of another under circumstances providing means of inquiry as to the true owner and appropriates such property to the person's own or another's use without reasonable efforts to notify the true owner; or

5. Controls property of another knowing or having reason to know that the property was stolen; or

6. Obtains services known to the defendant to be available only for compensation without paying or an agreement to pay the compensation or diverts another's services to the person's own or another's benefit without authority to do so; or

7. Controls the ferrous metal or nonferrous metal of another with the intent to deprive the other person of the metal; or

8. Controls the ferrous metal or nonferrous metal of another knowing or having reason to know that the metal was stolen; or

9. Purchases within the scope of the ordinary course of business the ferrous metal or nonferrous metal of another person knowing that the metal was stolen.

B. A person commits theft if, without lawful authority, the person knowingly takes control, title, use or management of a vulnerable adult's property while acting in a position of trust and confidence and with the intent to deprive the vulnerable adult of the property. Proof that a person took control, title, use or management of a vulnerable adult's property without adequate consideration to the vulnerable adult may give rise to an inference that the person intended to deprive the vulnerable adult of the property.

C. It is an affirmative defense to any prosecution under subsection B of this section that either:

1. The property was given as a gift consistent with a pattern of gift giving to the person that existed before the adult became vulnerable.

2. The property was given as a gift consistent with a pattern of gift giving to a class of individuals that existed before the adult became vulnerable.

3. The superior court approved the transaction before the transaction occurred.

D. The inferences set forth in section 13-2305 apply to any prosecution under subsection A, paragraph 5 of this section.

E. At the conclusion of any grand jury proceeding, hearing or trial, the court shall preserve any trade secret that is admitted in evidence or any portion of a transcript that contains information relating to the trade secret pursuant to section 44-405.

F. Subsection B of this section does not apply to an agent who is acting within the scope of the agent's duties as or on behalf of a health care institution that is licensed pursuant to title 36, chapter 4 and that provides services to the vulnerable adult.

G. Theft of property or services with a value of twenty-five thousand dollars or more is a class 2 felony. Theft of property or services with a value of four thousand dollars or more but less than twenty-five thousand dollars is a class 3 felony. Theft of property or services with a value of three thousand dollars or more but less than four thousand dollars is a class 4 felony, except that theft of any vehicle engine or transmission is a class 4 felony regardless of value.  Theft of property or services with a value of two thousand dollars or more but less than three thousand dollars is a class 5 felony.  Theft of property or services with a value of one thousand dollars or more but less than two thousand dollars is a class 6 felony.  Theft of any property or services valued at less than one thousand dollars is a class 1 misdemeanor, unless the property is taken from the person of another, is a firearm or is an animal taken for the purpose of animal fighting in violation of section 13-2910.01, in which case the theft is a class 6 felony.

H. A person who is convicted of a violation of subsection A, paragraph 1 or 3 of this section that involved property with a value of one hundred thousand dollars or more is not eligible for suspension of sentence, probation, pardon or release from confinement on any basis except pursuant to section 31-233, subsection A or B until the sentence imposed by the court has been served, the person is eligible for release pursuant to section 41-1604.07 or the sentence is commuted.

I. For the purposes of this section, the value of ferrous metal or nonferrous metal includes the amount of any damage to the property of another caused as a result of the theft of the metal.

J. In an action for theft of ferrous metal or nonferrous metal:

1. Unless satisfactorily explained or acquired in the ordinary course of business by an automotive recycler that is licensed pursuant to title 28, chapter 10 or by a scrap metal dealer as defined in section 44-1641, proof of possession of scrap metal that was recently stolen may give rise to an inference that the person in possession of the scrap metal was aware of the risk that it had been stolen or in some way participated in its theft.

2. Unless satisfactorily explained or sold in the ordinary course of business by an automotive recycler that is licensed pursuant to title 28, chapter 10 or by a scrap metal dealer as defined in section 44-1641, proof of the sale of stolen scrap metal at a price substantially below its fair market value may give rise to an inference that the person selling the scrap metal was aware of the risk that it had been stolen.

K. For the purposes of this section:

1. "Adequate consideration" means the property was given to the person as payment for bona fide goods or services provided by the person and the payment was at a rate that was customary for similar goods or services in the community that the vulnerable adult resided in at the time of the transaction.

2. "Ferrous metal" has the same meaning prescribed in section 44-1641.

3. "Pattern of gift giving" means two or more gifts that are the same or similar in type and monetary value.

4. "Position of trust and confidence" has the same meaning prescribed in section 46-456.

5. "Property" includes all forms of real property and personal property.

6. "Vulnerable adult" has the same meaning prescribed in section 46-451.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 286 cases (29 in the last 5 years), 1965–2026 · leading case: State of Arizona v. Bobby Ray Carter Jr, 469 P.3d 449 (Ariz. 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State of Arizona v. Bobby Ray Carter Jr, 469 P.3d 449 (Ariz. 2020). · cites it 13× “Because theft is a unitary offense, “when charging a defendant with theft, the State is not required to specify a subsection of A.R.S. § 13-1802 within the charging document” and “the jury need not unanimously agree on the manner in which the defendant committed the offense.”
Maria Huerta-Guevara v. John D. Ashcroft, U.S. Attorney Gen., 321 F.3d 883 (9th Cir. 2003). · cites it 8× “” The Notice to Appear alleged that Huerta had been convicted on February 11, 1997 in the Superior Court of Ari *886 zona for the offense of “AMENDED: POSSESSION OF A STOLEN VEHICLE” in violation of A.R.S. § 13-1802. Huerta’s removal hearing was continued several times to allow…”
State v. Brown, 64 P.3d 847 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 18× “¶ 13 Brown maintains that the facilitation portion of § 13-1805(I) creates the substantive offense of aggravated shoplifting, not merely a different classification of the offense.”
State of Arizona v. Robert Francisco Borquez, 307 P.3d 51 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 10× “1980) (finding that § 13-1802 defines single offense — theft—that can be committed in multiple ways).”
State v. Williams, 656 P.2d 1272 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 24× “§ 13-2002(A)(3), and theft, also a class four felony, in violation of A.R.S. § 13-1802(A)(3). On April 2, 1981, pursuant to a written plea agreement, defendant Williams pled guilty to the indicted charges, in exchange for the state's agreement not to allege any prior convictions.”
State v. Winter, 706 P.2d 1228 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 22× “Appellant, Jonnene La Vae Winter, and her co-defendant, Dean Edward Nicholson, were charged with two counts of theft, class 3 felonies, in violation of A.R.S. § 13-1802. Appellant’s trial was severed from that of her co-defendant and she was found guilty of both counts.”
State v. Mohr, 724 P.2d 1233 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 22× “§ 13-2307(A), and one count of theft, a violation of A.R.S. § 13-1802(A)(1). A jury found appellant guilty as charged on both counts.”
State v. Cotten, 263 P.3d 654 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 18× “) section 13-3102(A)(4) (2009), a class four felony, in addition to two counts of theft in violation of A.R.S. § 13-1802 (2009), class six felonies.”
State v. Tramble, 695 P.2d 737 (Ariz. 1985). · cites it 14× “Quincy Tramble (defendant) was convicted of theft in violation of A.R.S. § 13-1802. His crime was classified as a class 6 felony rather than a class 1 misdemeanor because the theft was “from the person of another.”
State v. Dixon, 622 P.2d 501 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 8× “bout the 29th day of May, 1979, RUPERT RAY DIXON stole from or knowing or having reason to know it was stolen, controlled or came into control of property or services with a value of more than $100, as follows: One Curtis Mathis color television, One Panasonic Receiver, One…”
State v. Sanders, 68 P.3d 434 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 8× “2d at 1231-32 , that the various subsections of A.R.S. § 13-1802 (1982) simply set forth alternative means of committing the unitary offense of theft.”
State v. Jones, 610 P.2d 51 (Ariz. 1980). · cites it 8× “, was convicted of possession of stolen property, a violation of A.R.S. § 13-1802, and appeals. Jurisdiction was accepted pursuant to Rule 47(e)(5), Rules of the Supreme Court, 17A A.”
Show all 286 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1802(0) — 3 cases
State v. Tramble, 695 P.2d 737 (Ariz. 1985). “Quincy Tramble (defendant) was convicted of theft in violation of A.R.S. § 13-1802. His crime was classified as a class 6 felony rather than a class 1 misdemeanor because the theft was “from the person of another.”
State v. Love, 711 P.2d 1240 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
Johnson v. State, 804 P.2d 100 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1802(1) — 2 cases
State v. Ulin, 548 P.2d 19 (Ariz. 1976).
State v. Whitaker, 544 P.2d 219 (Ariz. 1975).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1802(1)(1975) — 1 case
United States v. Taylor, 62 M.J. 636 (A.F.C.C.A. 2006).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1802(A) — 19 cases
State of Arizona v. Bobby Ray Carter Jr, 469 P.3d 449 (Ariz. 2020). “Because theft is a unitary offense, “when charging a defendant with theft, the State is not required to specify a subsection of A.R.S. § 13-1802 within the charging document” and “the jury need not unanimously agree on the manner in which the defendant committed the offense.”
State v. Clough, 829 P.2d 1263 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992).
Capson v. Superior Court of State of Ariz., Etc., 677 P.2d 276 (Ariz. 1984).
Almadova v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 649 P.2d 284 (Ariz. 1982).
People v. Mumm, 120 Cal. Rptr. 2d 18 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1802(A)(1) — 70 cases
State v. Celaya, 660 P.2d 849 (Ariz. 1983).
State of Arizona v. Bobby Ray Carter Jr, 469 P.3d 449 (Ariz. 2020). “Because theft is a unitary offense, “when charging a defendant with theft, the State is not required to specify a subsection of A.R.S. § 13-1802 within the charging document” and “the jury need not unanimously agree on the manner in which the defendant committed the offense.”
State v. Mohr, 724 P.2d 1233 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). “§ 13-2307(A), and one count of theft, a violation of A.R.S. § 13-1802(A)(1). A jury found appellant guilty as charged on both counts.”
State v. McNair, 687 P.2d 1230 (Ariz. 1984).
State v. Cotten, 263 P.3d 654 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). “) section 13-3102(A)(4) (2009), a class four felony, in addition to two counts of theft in violation of A.R.S. § 13-1802 (2009), class six felonies.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1802(A)(2) — 11 cases
State of Arizona v. Penny Ann West, 362 P.3d 1049 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
Maria Huerta-Guevara v. John D. Ashcroft, U.S. Attorney Gen., 321 F.3d 883 (9th Cir. 2003). “” The Notice to Appear alleged that Huerta had been convicted on February 11, 1997 in the Superior Court of Ari *886 zona for the offense of “AMENDED: POSSESSION OF A STOLEN VEHICLE” in violation of A.R.S. § 13-1802. Huerta’s removal hearing was continued several times to allow…”
In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Grimble, 759 P.2d 594 (Ariz. 1988).
State v. Griest, 994 P.2d 1028 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).
State v. Johnson, 880 P.2d 132 (Ariz. 1994).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1802(A)(3) — 18 cases
State v. Williams, 656 P.2d 1272 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982). “§ 13-2002(A)(3), and theft, also a class four felony, in violation of A.R.S. § 13-1802(A)(3). On April 2, 1981, pursuant to a written plea agreement, defendant Williams pled guilty to the indicted charges, in exchange for the state's agreement not to allege any prior convictions.”
State of Arizona v. Robert Francisco Borquez, 307 P.3d 51 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). “1980) (finding that § 13-1802 defines single offense — theft—that can be committed in multiple ways).”
Jardanowski v. Indus. Com'n of Arizona, 3 P.3d 1166 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).
State v. Sharma, 165 P.3d 693 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
State v. Haas, 675 P.2d 673 (Ariz. 1983).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1802(A)(4) — 4 cases
State v. Jernigan, 209 P.3d 153 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
State v. Miller, 755 P.2d 434 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
Matter of Burns, 679 P.2d 510 (Ariz. 1984).
In re Burns, 679 P.2d 510 (Ariz. 1984).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1802(A)(5) — 30 cases
State v. Ramos, 648 P.2d 119 (Ariz. 1982).
State v. Curiel, 634 P.2d 988 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981).
State v. Alfaro, 623 P.2d 8 (Ariz. 1980).
State v. Mohr, 724 P.2d 1233 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). “§ 13-2307(A), and one count of theft, a violation of A.R.S. § 13-1802(A)(1). A jury found appellant guilty as charged on both counts.”
Koss Corp. v. Am. Express Co., 309 P.3d 898 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1802(A)(6) — 5 cases
State v. Hon kalauli/kroll, 414 P.3d 690 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
State of Arizona v. Bobby Ray Carter Jr, 469 P.3d 449 (Ariz. 2020). “Because theft is a unitary offense, “when charging a defendant with theft, the State is not required to specify a subsection of A.R.S. § 13-1802 within the charging document” and “the jury need not unanimously agree on the manner in which the defendant committed the offense.”
State v. Smith, 662 A.2d 1171 (R.I. 1995).
Riley, Hoggatt & Suagee, P.C. v. Riley, 796 P.2d 940 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
United States v. Cheek, 586 F. Supp. 2d 1099 (D. Ariz. 2008).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1802(A)(7) — 4 cases
State of Arizona v. Bobby Ray Carter Jr, 469 P.3d 449 (Ariz. 2020). “Because theft is a unitary offense, “when charging a defendant with theft, the State is not required to specify a subsection of A.R.S. § 13-1802 within the charging document” and “the jury need not unanimously agree on the manner in which the defendant committed the offense.”
State v. Hon kalauli/kroll, 414 P.3d 690 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
Lane v. Gavilan Peak (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
State v. Tingue (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1802(B) — 4 cases
State v. Mohr, 724 P.2d 1233 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). “§ 13-2307(A), and one count of theft, a violation of A.R.S. § 13-1802(A)(1). A jury found appellant guilty as charged on both counts.”
State v. Curiel, 634 P.2d 988 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981).
State v. Smith, 828 P.2d 778 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992).
Lincoln v. State (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1802(C) — 18 cases
State v. Crowder, 747 P.2d 1176 (Ariz. 1987).
State v. Tramble, 695 P.2d 737 (Ariz. 1985). “Quincy Tramble (defendant) was convicted of theft in violation of A.R.S. § 13-1802. His crime was classified as a class 6 felony rather than a class 1 misdemeanor because the theft was “from the person of another.”
State v. Schrock, 719 P.2d 1049 (Ariz. 1986).
State v. Arthur, 608 P.2d 90 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980).
State v. Brokaw, 658 P.2d 185 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1802(D) — 1 case
State v. Wolter, 3 P.3d 1110 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1802(E) — 8 cases
Salerno v. Espinoza, 115 P.3d 626 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
State v. Brown, 64 P.3d 847 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). “¶ 13 Brown maintains that the facilitation portion of § 13-1805(I) creates the substantive offense of aggravated shoplifting, not merely a different classification of the offense.”
State v. Hamblin, 176 P.3d 49 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
State v. Fimbres, 213 P.3d 1020 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
Lopez v. Shinn (D. Ariz. 2020).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1802(G) — 19 cases
State of Arizona v. Francisco Xavier Veloz, 342 P.3d 1272 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
State v. Salerno (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).
State v. Petersen (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
In Re Sunny L. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
State v. Hawthorne (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1802(a)(1) — 1 case
Ferren v. Westmed Inc. (D. Ariz. 2021).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1802(a)(5) — 1 case
State v. Crawford, 149 P.3d 753 (Ariz. 2007).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1802(c) — 1 case
State v. Corrales, 641 P.2d 1315 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982).
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.