Arizona Revised Statutes
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-201 (2026)
Requirements for criminal liability
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official)
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
The minimum requirement for criminal liability is the performance by a person of conduct which includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform a duty imposed by law which the person is physically capable of performing.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: State v. Moody, 94 P.3d 1119 (Ariz. 2004).
State v. Moody, 94 P.3d 1119 (Ariz. 2004). “Failure to Give a Voluntary Act Instruction ¶ 197 Moody alleges error in the trial court's refusal to give a voluntary act instruction.”
State v. McKeon, 38 P.3d 1236 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). “See A.R.S. § 13-201. This principle has been codified in Arizona since 1901.”
State v. Lara, 902 P.2d 1337 (Ariz. 1995). “Based on this sort of testimony, Lara asked for a voluntary act instruction under A.R.S. § 13-201 and § ÍS-IOS^). 1 The trial court rejected the instruction.”
Carlos Cruz v. Hon. blair/state of Arizona, 532 P.3d 327 (Ariz. 2023). “¶19 Actus reus is codified in A.R.S. § 13-201: “The minimum requirement for criminal liability is the performance by a person of conduct which includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform a duty imposed by law which the person is physically capable of performing.”
State v. Vandever, 119 P.3d 473 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). “, a legal excuse, only if it was unforeseeable and, with the benefit of hindsight, may be described as abnormal or extraordinary.”
State v. Bayardi, 281 P.3d 1063 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). “See A.R.S. § 13-201 (proof of "voluntary act” is a "minimum requirement for criminal liability”); State v.”
State v. Malloy, 639 P.2d 315 (Ariz. 1981). “See A.R.S. § 13-201. Hence, the word “knowingly” as used in the criminal trespass statute must have some additional meaning, for the difference in language must have been intended to bring about a difference in result.”
State v. Venegas, 669 P.2d 604 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). “” A voluntary act is essential to establishing appellant’s criminal liability here, because A.R.S. § 13-201 provides: The minimum requirement for criminal liability is the performance by a person of conduct which includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform a duty imposed…”
State of Arizona v. Jesus Xavier Almaguer, 303 P.3d 84 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). “AR.S. § 13-201. A voluntary act is a “bodily movement performed consciously and as a result of effort and determination.”
State v. Far West Water & Sewer Inc., 228 P.3d 909 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). “A.R.S. § 13-201(2001). “Conduct” is “an act or omission and its accompanying mental state.”
State, Ex Rel. Horne v. Campos, 250 P.3d 201 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). “See A.R.S. § 13-201 (2010) (criminal liability requires "a voluntary act” or the omission of a duty a person could have performed).”
State v. Fristoe, 658 P.2d 825 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982). “3 Further, A.R.S. § 13-201 states: The minimum requirement for criminal liability is the performance by a person of conduct which includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform a duty imposed by law which the person is physically capable of performing.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-201(2001) — 1 case
State v. Far West Water & Sewer Inc., 228 P.3d 909 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). “A.R.S. § 13-201(2001). “Conduct” is “an act or omission and its accompanying mental state.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-201(A)(1) — 1 case
State v. Vandever, 119 P.3d 473 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). “, a legal excuse, only if it was unforeseeable and, with the benefit of hindsight, may be described as abnormal or extraordinary.”
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.