Arizona Revised Statutes
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-204 (2026)
Effect of ignorance or mistake upon criminal liability
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official)
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
A. Ignorance or a mistaken belief as to a matter of fact does not relieve a person of criminal liability unless:
1. It negates the culpable mental state required for commission of the offense; or
2. It supports a defense of justification as defined in chapter 4 of this title.
B. Ignorance or mistake as to a matter of law does not relieve a person of criminal responsibility.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1983–2023 · leading case: State v. Gallegos, 870 P.2d 1097 (Ariz. 1994).
State v. Gallegos, 870 P.2d 1097 (Ariz. 1994). “See A.R.S. § 13-204. [3] Alternatively, defendant argues that even if he was not entitled to an instruction under § 13-204 because he failed to request one, the instruction that the trial judge in fact gave was directly contrary to § 13-204 because that section does not…”
State v. Celaya, 660 P.2d 849 (Ariz. 1983). “A.R.S. § 13-204(B). The facts of this case do not compel us to create an exception to this rule.”
Traylor v. State, 43 S.W.3d 725 (Tex. App. 2001). “§ 702-218(1) (1999); Idaho Code § 18-201 (1) (1999); Ill.Comp.”
State v. Young, 965 P.2d 37 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998). “Knowledge of Operability ¶ 15 Defendant argues that the State was obliged, and failed, to prove he knew the weapon was not permanently inoperable.”
Benevolent & Prot. Order of Elks 2656 v. State Dep't of Liquor Licenses & Control, 366 P.3d 1011 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “§ 13-105(10)(b) (stating that the term “knowingly,” when describing conduct constituting a criminal offense, “does not require any knowledge of the unlawfulness of the act or omission”).”
State v. Romero, 463 P.3d 225 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020). “See A.R.S. § 13-204(B); State v. Morse, 127 Ariz.”
State v. Soltero, 71 P.3d 370 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). “¶ 8 This concept of ignorance of the law being no excuse is codified in Arizona in A.R.S. § 13-204(B) (2001). See 1 Rudolph J.”
State v. Agee, 887 P.2d 588 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). “A.R.S. § 13-204 (1989) is captioned "Effect of ignorance or mistake upon criminal liability,” and provides: A.”
State v. Diaz, 803 P.2d 435 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990). “See A.R.S. § 13-204(A). We agree with appellant that the instruction given was improper.”
State v. Bloomer, 751 P.2d 592 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). “As to the state’s instruction number 14, appellant contends that the court incorrectly instructed the jurors regarding his defense of ignorance or mistake as to a matter of fact because the court omitted from its instruction subparagraphs 1 and 2 of A.R.S. § 13-204(A). The court…”
State v. Francis, 231 P.3d 373 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). “A.R.S. § 13-204(B) (“Ignorance or mistake as to a matter of law does not relieve a person of criminal responsibility.”
State v. Morgan, 808 P.2d 348 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). “Defendant’s argument is directly refuted by Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 13-105(6)(b) (1989), which provides that the use of the term “knowingly” in defining a criminal offense “does not require any knowledge of the unlawfulness of the act or omission.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-204(A) — 5 cases
State v. Diaz, 803 P.2d 435 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990). “See A.R.S. § 13-204(A). We agree with appellant that the instruction given was improper.”
State v. Bloomer, 751 P.2d 592 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). “As to the state’s instruction number 14, appellant contends that the court incorrectly instructed the jurors regarding his defense of ignorance or mistake as to a matter of fact because the court omitted from its instruction subparagraphs 1 and 2 of A.R.S. § 13-204(A). The court…”
State v. Lamar, 698 P.2d 735 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).
State v. Lámar, 698 P.2d 735 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
State v. Norman (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-204(A)(1) — 5 cases
Traylor v. State, 43 S.W.3d 725 (Tex. App. 2001). “§ 702-218(1) (1999); Idaho Code § 18-201 (1) (1999); Ill.Comp.”
State v. Young, 965 P.2d 37 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998). “Knowledge of Operability ¶ 15 Defendant argues that the State was obliged, and failed, to prove he knew the weapon was not permanently inoperable.”
State of Arizona v. Darrel Scott Francis, 410 P.3d 416 (Ariz. 2018).
State v. Guzman-Leal (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
State v. Villalobos (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-204(A)(2) — 3 cases
United States v. Rosales-Valdez, 375 F. Supp. 2d 1152 (D.N.M. 2004).
State of Arizona v. Antajuan Stewart Carson Jr., 410 P.3d 1230 (Ariz. 2018).
State of Arizona v. Jordan Christopher Ewer, 523 P.3d 393 (Ariz. 2023).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-204(B) — 10 cases
State v. Celaya, 660 P.2d 849 (Ariz. 1983). “A.R.S. § 13-204(B). The facts of this case do not compel us to create an exception to this rule.”
Benevolent & Prot. Order of Elks 2656 v. State Dep't of Liquor Licenses & Control, 366 P.3d 1011 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “§ 13-105(10)(b) (stating that the term “knowingly,” when describing conduct constituting a criminal offense, “does not require any knowledge of the unlawfulness of the act or omission”).”
State v. Romero, 463 P.3d 225 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020). “See A.R.S. § 13-204(B); State v. Morse, 127 Ariz.”
State v. Soltero, 71 P.3d 370 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). “¶ 8 This concept of ignorance of the law being no excuse is codified in Arizona in A.R.S. § 13-204(B) (2001). See 1 Rudolph J.”
State v. Francis, 231 P.3d 373 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). “A.R.S. § 13-204(B) (“Ignorance or mistake as to a matter of law does not relieve a person of criminal responsibility.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-204(a)(2) — 1 case
Valdez v. Phoenix, City of (D. Ariz. 2019).
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.