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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-205 (2026)

Affirmative defenses; justification; burden of proof

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

A. Except as otherwise provided by law, a defendant shall prove any affirmative defense raised by a preponderance of the evidence. Justification defenses under chapter 4 of this title are not affirmative defenses. Justification defenses describe conduct that, if not justified, would constitute an offense but, if justified, does not constitute criminal or wrongful conduct.  If evidence of justification pursuant to chapter 4 of this title is presented by the defendant, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act with justification.

B. This section does not affect the presumption contained in section 13-411, subsection C and section 13-503.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 83 cases (19 in the last 5 years), 1990–2025 · leading case: State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle, 379 P.3d 197 (Ariz. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle, 379 P.3d 197 (Ariz. 2016). · cites it 16× “3d 351, 355 (2003) (superseded by statute, A.R.S. § 13-205(A)) (the legislature, not the judiciary, has “constitutional authority to define crimes and defenses”); State v.”
State v. Casey, 71 P.3d 351 (Ariz. 2003). · cites it 22× “ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶ 6 The issue we accepted for review was framed as follows: Does A.R.S. § 13-205 offend due process in shifting the burden of proof by requiring a defendant to prove self-defense? Framed another way, is lack of justification a matter that must be…”
Susan Ryan v. napier/klein, 425 P.3d 230 (Ariz. 2018). · cites it 11× “Justification defenses describe conduct that, if not justified, would constitute an offense but, if justified, does not constitute criminal or wrongful conduct. If evidence of justification pursuant to chapter 4 of this title is presented by the defendant, the state must prove…”
Louis C. v. Dep't of Child Saf., 353 P.3d 364 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 13× “After the juvenile court took the matter under advisement, Louis filed a request for an expedited ruling and findings of fact, specifically asking the court to determine “[w]hether the initial [DCS] removal was based on a finding of imminent harm to the minor or the…”
State v. Karr, 212 P.3d 11 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 9× “§ 13-205 provided that it was the defendant’s burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence any of the justification defenses found in Chapter 4 of the Criminal Code, which includes self-defense and the justified use of deadly physical force.”
Garcia v. Browning, 151 P.3d 533 (Ariz. 2007). · cites it 13× “At the time of the offense, A.R.S. § 13-205 (2001) required that a defendant prove any justification defense by a preponderance of the evidence.”
May v. Ryan, 245 F. Supp. 3d 1145 (D. Ariz. 2017). · cites it 6× “Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-205 (A) (2006). May, a former school teacher and swim instructor, lived in a Mesa, Arizona apartment complex where he often taught children how to swim and played with them at the community pool.”
State v. Bayardi, 281 P.3d 1063 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 8× “¶ 11 Fannin argues 28-1381(D) is a defense denying an element of the charge or responsibility as well as a justification defense or “akin to a justification” defense. Accordingly, Fannin claims the State has the burden to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did…”
State v. King, 235 P.3d 240 (Ariz. 2010). · cites it 5× “A.R.S. § 13-205(A). ¶ 15 The State argues that King did not present even the slightest evidence that he acted in self defense.”
David Garcia v. State of Arizona, 146 P.3d 1007 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 30× “¶ 1 This special action presents the issue whether the current version of A.R.S. § 13-205, Arizona’s statute on affirmative defenses, enacted as an emergency measure pursuant to article IV, pt.”
State v. Martinez, 47 P.3d 1145 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 13× “A.R.S. § 13-205 (2001). ¶ 15 We give the words of a statute their commonly accepted meaning “unless the legislature has offered its own definitions or a special meaning is apparent from the context.”
State v. Sierra-Cervantes, 37 P.3d 432 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 9× “We recently found § 13-205 to be constitutional. State v. Farley, 199 Ariz.”
Show all 83 citing cases →
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-205(A): 64 cases
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle, 379 P.3d 197 (Ariz. 2016). “3d 351, 355 (2003) (superseded by statute, A.R.S. § 13-205(A)) (the legislature, not the judiciary, has “constitutional authority to define crimes and defenses”); State v.”
State v. Bayardi, 281 P.3d 1063 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). “¶ 11 Fannin argues 28-1381(D) is a defense denying an element of the charge or responsibility as well as a justification defense or “akin to a justification” defense. Accordingly, Fannin claims the State has the burden to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did…”
State v. King, 235 P.3d 240 (Ariz. 2010). “A.R.S. § 13-205(A). ¶ 15 The State argues that King did not present even the slightest evidence that he acted in self defense.”
State v. Farley, 19 P.3d 1258 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
Louis C. v. Dep't of Child Saf., 353 P.3d 364 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). “After the juvenile court took the matter under advisement, Louis filed a request for an expedited ruling and findings of fact, specifically asking the court to determine “[w]hether the initial [DCS] removal was based on a finding of imminent harm to the minor or the…”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-205(B): 3 cases
State v. Martinez, 47 P.3d 1145 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). “A.R.S. § 13-205 (2001). ¶ 15 We give the words of a statute their commonly accepted meaning “unless the legislature has offered its own definitions or a special meaning is apparent from the context.”
State of Arizona v. Roger Delane Wilson, 510 P.3d 528 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022).
State v. Benson (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
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.