Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1807 (2026)

Issuing a bad check; violation; classification

✓ 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 issuing a bad check if the person issues or passes a check knowing that the person does not have sufficient funds in or on deposit with the bank or other drawee for the payment in full of the check as well as all other checks outstanding at the time of issuance.

B. Any of the following is a defense to prosecution under this section:

1. The payee or holder knows or has been expressly notified before the drawing of the check or has reason to believe that the drawer did not have on deposit or to the drawer's credit with the drawee sufficient funds to ensure payment on its presentation.

2. The check is postdated and sufficient funds are on deposit with the drawee on such later date for the payment in full of the check.

3. Insufficiency of funds results from an adjustment to the person's account by the credit institution without notice to the person.

C. Nothing in this section prohibits prosecution for any other applicable criminal offense.

D. Except as provided in subsection E of this section, issuing a bad check is a class 1 misdemeanor.

E. Issuing a bad check in an amount of five thousand dollars or more is a class 6 felony if the person fails to pay the full amount of the check, including accrued interest at the rate of twelve per cent per year and any other applicable fees pursuant to this chapter, within sixty days after receiving notice pursuant to section 13-1808.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1989–2018 · leading case: Earl Edwin Gobel & Michael J. Defranco v. Maricopa Cnty., Thomas E. Collins, David P. Stoller, & Frank Gary, 867 F.2d 1201 (9th Cir. 1989).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Earl Edwin Gobel & Michael J. Defranco v. Maricopa Cnty., Thomas E. Collins, David P. Stoller, & Frank Gary, 867 F.2d 1201 (9th Cir. 1989). · cites it 4× “BACKGROUND Gobel and DeFranco were each arrested on August 24, 1985, and charged with issuing bad checks in violation of Ariz.Rev. Stat. § 13-1807. 1 Both men were wrongly arrested as a result of mistaken identifications, 2 and the charges against both men were subsequently…”

Villa De Jardines Ass'n v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, 253 P.3d 288 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). “Because we award the Banks attorney fees under § 13-1807(H) and Rule 25, we do not address whether an award of fees under § 12-341.”

State v. Clough, 829 P.2d 1263 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 13-1807. Nonetheless, if the facts of a crime committed in another jurisdiction satisfy the elements of an Arizona felony, the out-of-state conviction can be used to enhance the sentence imposed in Arizona.”

Commonwealth v. Goren, 893 N.E.2d 786 (Mass. App. Ct. 2008). “See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-1807 (2001); Conn.”

ODIN Demolition & Asset Recovery, LLC v. Marathon Petroleum Co., LP (Tex. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “” The complaint lists the defendant as “Karen Dean Murphy” and her race as white; • A “Warrant for Arrest,” dated October 5, 1998 and signed by a Justice of the Peace for Bullhead County Justice Court, Mohave County, Arizona, for the misdemeanor offense of “ARS 13-1807 ISSUING A…”

Villa De Jardines Ass'n v. Flagstar Bank, Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Assoc. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). “ECKERSTROM, Judge 11 Because we award the Banks attorney fees under § 13-1807(H) and Rule 25, we do not address whether an award of fees under § 12-341.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1807(A) — 1 case

Earl Edwin Gobel & Michael J. Defranco v. Maricopa Cnty., Thomas E. Collins, David P. Stoller, & Frank Gary, 867 F.2d 1201 (9th Cir. 1989). “BACKGROUND Gobel and DeFranco were each arrested on August 24, 1985, and charged with issuing bad checks in violation of Ariz.Rev. Stat. § 13-1807. 1 Both men were wrongly arrested as a result of mistaken identifications, 2 and the charges against both men were subsequently…”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1807(H) — 2 cases

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.