Arizona Revised Statutes
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2802 (2026)
Influencing a witness; 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 influencing a witness if such person threatens a witness or offers, confers or agrees to confer any benefit upon a witness in any official proceeding or a person he believes may be called as a witness with intent to:
1. Influence the testimony of that person; or
2. Induce that person to avoid legal process summoning him to testify; or
3. Induce that person to absent himself from any official proceeding to which he has been legally summoned.
B. Influencing a witness is a class 5 felony.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases, 1985–2014 · leading case: State v. Canez, 42 P.3d 564 (Ariz. 2002).
State v. Canez, 42 P.3d 564 (Ariz. 2002). “2d 1184, 1192-93 (1989) (finding that offer of favorable plea agreement did not violate A.R.S. § 13-2802 or rules of professional ethics).”
State v. Dumaine, 783 P.2d 1184 (Ariz. 1989). “The defendant argues that this plea bargain, in effect, “purchased” McCloud’s testimony.”
State v. Gulbrandson, 906 P.2d 579 (Ariz. 1995). “Sally and Charles Maio both testified regarding defendant’s previous assault on Irene. Finally, we find no evidence in this case that the prosecutor coerced or intimidated the witnesses, induced the witnesses to testify falsely, or shared information with the witnesses so their…”
State v. Gray, 258 P.3d 242 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). “” The state thus acknowledges that “the legislature may have used the word ‘induce’ [in § 13-2804] to define conduct which successfully effectuates a change in the witnesses] behavior, while ‘with intent to induce’ [in § 13-2802] might *428 refer to conduct that is intended (but…”
State v. Cañez, 42 P.3d 564 (Ariz. 2002). “2d 1184, 1192-93 (1989) (finding that offer of favorable plea agreement did not violate A.R.S. § 13-2802 or rules of professional ethics).”
State v. Rivera, 86 P.3d 963 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). “[1] See A.R.S. § 13-2802(A)(1) (2001) ("A person commits influencing a witness if such person threatens a witness or offers, confers or agrees to confer any benefit upon a witness in any official proceeding or a person he believes may be called as a witness with intent to .”
State of Arizona v. Francisco Antonio Lopez, 279 P.3d 640 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). “A.R.S. § 13-2802(A). The purpose of the law is to “prevent the corrupt interference with the administration of justice”; therefore, the legislature criminalized “any attempt to .”
Canez v. Ryan, 25 F. Supp. 3d 1250 (D. Ariz. 2014). “The Pinal County Attorney Violated ARS 13-2802 and ER 3.4(b) by “Purchasing” Testimony From and Therefore Influencing Several of the State’s Witnesses, in Violation of the Statute and Appellant’s Right to Due Process Under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and Article 2…”
Miller v. Glen & Helen Aircraft, Inc., 777 F.2d 496 (9th Cir. 1985). “§ 1964 (c) (1982), based on alleged predicate acts stemming from the earlier federal lawsuit of influencing a witness, Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 13-2802(A)(1) (1978), bribery of a witness, 18 U.”
State of Arizona v. Ricky Gray (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). “” The state thus acknowledges that “the legislature may have used the word „induce‟ [in § 13-2804] to define conduct which successfully effectuates a change in the witness‟[s] behavior, while „with intent to induce‟ [in § 13-2802] might refer to conduct that is intended (but…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2802(A) — 2 cases
State of Arizona v. Francisco Antonio Lopez, 279 P.3d 640 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). “A.R.S. § 13-2802(A). The purpose of the law is to “prevent the corrupt interference with the administration of justice”; therefore, the legislature criminalized “any attempt to .”
State v. Gray, 258 P.3d 242 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). “” The state thus acknowledges that “the legislature may have used the word ‘induce’ [in § 13-2804] to define conduct which successfully effectuates a change in the witnesses] behavior, while ‘with intent to induce’ [in § 13-2802] might *428 refer to conduct that is intended (but…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2802(A)(1) — 4 cases
State v. Canez, 42 P.3d 564 (Ariz. 2002). “2d 1184, 1192-93 (1989) (finding that offer of favorable plea agreement did not violate A.R.S. § 13-2802 or rules of professional ethics).”
State v. Rivera, 86 P.3d 963 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). “[1] See A.R.S. § 13-2802(A)(1) (2001) ("A person commits influencing a witness if such person threatens a witness or offers, confers or agrees to confer any benefit upon a witness in any official proceeding or a person he believes may be called as a witness with intent to .”
State v. Cañez, 42 P.3d 564 (Ariz. 2002). “2d 1184, 1192-93 (1989) (finding that offer of favorable plea agreement did not violate A.R.S. § 13-2802 or rules of professional ethics).”
Miller v. Glen & Helen Aircraft, Inc., 777 F.2d 496 (9th Cir. 1985). “§ 1964 (c) (1982), based on alleged predicate acts stemming from the earlier federal lawsuit of influencing a witness, Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 13-2802(A)(1) (1978), bribery of a witness, 18 U.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2802(A)(2) — 2 cases
State v. Gray, 258 P.3d 242 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). “” The state thus acknowledges that “the legislature may have used the word ‘induce’ [in § 13-2804] to define conduct which successfully effectuates a change in the witnesses] behavior, while ‘with intent to induce’ [in § 13-2802] might *428 refer to conduct that is intended (but…”
State of Arizona v. Ricky Gray (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). “” The state thus acknowledges that “the legislature may have used the word „induce‟ [in § 13-2804] to define conduct which successfully effectuates a change in the witness‟[s] behavior, while „with intent to induce‟ [in § 13-2802] might refer to conduct that is intended (but…”
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.