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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2701 (2026)

Definitions

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

In this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires:

1. "Material" means that which could have affected the course or outcome of any proceeding or transaction. Whether a statement is material in any given factual situation is a question of law.

2. "Statement" means any representation of fact and includes a representation of opinion, belief or other state of mind where the representation clearly relates to state of mind apart from or in addition to any facts which are the subject of the representation.

3. "Sworn statement" means any statement knowingly given under oath or affirmation attesting to the truth of what is stated, including a notarized statement whether or not given in connection with an official proceeding.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: State v. Moody, 94 P.3d 1119 (Ariz. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Moody, 94 P.3d 1119 (Ariz. 2004). · cites it 4× “" A.R.S. § 13-2701(1) (2001). The unchallenged evidence offered at the grand jury proceeding was overwhelming: In addition to the "Bob" and "Tucson" information, the grand jury also heard that Moody knew Michelle Malone and may have purchased cocaine from her in the past; that a…”
Franzi v. Superior Court of Arizona, 679 P.2d 1043 (Ariz. 1984). · cites it 16× “The state argues that Franzi's false statements could have hindered the grand jury's investigation by causing the wrongful indictment of innocent individuals or nonindictment of those who should have been indicted.”
Franzi v. Superior Court, 679 P.2d 1043 (Ariz. 1984). · cites it 16× “” A.R.S. § 13-2701(1). If Franzi’s statements were not material to offenses within the grand jury’s authority to indict, his statements, as a matter of law, would not constitute perjury.”
State v. Taylor, 166 P.3d 118 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “The defendant shall, prior to said questioning, be advised of the perjury penalties as set forth in A.R.S. § 13-2701 et seq. Rule 6.7(d) states in part: d.”
State v. Fodor, 880 P.2d 662 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 4× “” A.R.S. § 13-2701(1) (1989); Franzi 139 Ariz.”
Donahoe v. Arpaio, 986 F. Supp. 2d 1091 (D. Ariz. 2013). · cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 13-2701. Generally, this refers to affecting the decision of a tribunal.”
State v. Spinks, 752 P.2d 8 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “Material evidence is defined by A.R.S. § 13-2701(1) as “that which could have affected the course or outcome of any proceeding or transaction.”
Simms v. Simms, 567 P.3d 92 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “SIMMS, et al. Opinion of the Court material if it was significant enough to affect the outcome of the Racing Department’s licensing and permitting decisions in 2000 or 2003.”
State v. Self, 661 P.2d 224 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). “§ 13-2701. Definitions In this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires: 2.”
State v. Nguyen (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 4× “” A.R.S. § 13-2701(1). ¶11 The evidence supported that Nguyen committed perjury.”
State v. James, 857 P.2d 1332 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. §§ 13-2701, 13-2702. Empaneled jurors simply swear or affirm that they will “give careful attention to the proceedings, abide by the court’s instructions, and render a verdict in accordance with the law and evidence____” See Rule 18.”
State v. Brooks (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 13-2701(1). Although A.T. did not testify that 6 STATE v.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2701(1) — 9 cases
State v. Moody, 94 P.3d 1119 (Ariz. 2004). “" A.R.S. § 13-2701(1) (2001). The unchallenged evidence offered at the grand jury proceeding was overwhelming: In addition to the "Bob" and "Tucson" information, the grand jury also heard that Moody knew Michelle Malone and may have purchased cocaine from her in the past; that a…”
Franzi v. Superior Court of Arizona, 679 P.2d 1043 (Ariz. 1984). “The state argues that Franzi's false statements could have hindered the grand jury's investigation by causing the wrongful indictment of innocent individuals or nonindictment of those who should have been indicted.”
State v. Fodor, 880 P.2d 662 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). “” A.R.S. § 13-2701(1) (1989); Franzi 139 Ariz.”
Franzi v. Superior Court, 679 P.2d 1043 (Ariz. 1984). “” A.R.S. § 13-2701(1). If Franzi’s statements were not material to offenses within the grand jury’s authority to indict, his statements, as a matter of law, would not constitute perjury.”
State v. Spinks, 752 P.2d 8 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). “Material evidence is defined by A.R.S. § 13-2701(1) as “that which could have affected the course or outcome of any proceeding or transaction.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2701(2) — 2 cases
Franzi v. Superior Court of Arizona, 679 P.2d 1043 (Ariz. 1984). “The state argues that Franzi's false statements could have hindered the grand jury's investigation by causing the wrongful indictment of innocent individuals or nonindictment of those who should have been indicted.”
Franzi v. Superior Court, 679 P.2d 1043 (Ariz. 1984). “” A.R.S. § 13-2701(1). If Franzi’s statements were not material to offenses within the grand jury’s authority to indict, his statements, as a matter of law, would not constitute perjury.”
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.