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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2810 (2026)

Interfering with judicial proceedings; 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 interfering with judicial proceedings if such person knowingly:

1. Engages in disorderly, disrespectful or insolent behavior during the session of a court which directly tends to interrupt its proceedings or impairs the respect due to its authority; or

2. Disobeys or resists the lawful order, process or other mandate of a court; or

3. Refuses to be sworn or affirmed as a witness in any court proceeding; or

4. Publishes a false or grossly inaccurate report of a court proceeding; or

5. Refuses to serve as a juror unless exempted by law; or

6. Fails inexcusably to attend a trial at which he has been chosen to serve as a juror.

B. Interfering with judicial proceedings is a class 1 misdemeanor.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1992–2025 · leading case: Ottaway v. Smith, 113 P.3d 1247 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ottaway v. Smith, 113 P.3d 1247 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 36× “[d]isobey[ing] or resisting] the lawful order, process or other mandate of a court,” also meets the definition of “criminal contempt” found in A.”
Vera v. Hon rogers/chaidez, 433 P.3d 1190 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “21(c) (protective orders control over conflicting legal decision-making orders); A.R.S. § 13-2810 (criminal penalties for violations of protective orders).”
Douglass v. State, 195 P.3d 189 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 11× “when Charles allegedly violated the order of protection issued on her behalf in violation of A.R.S. § 13-2810, a class one misdemeanor.”
Raney v. Lindberg, 76 P.3d 867 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “§§ 13-3415 (2001), -3401, -701, -702 and - 801 (count two); and interference with judicial proceedings, a class one misdemeanor, in violation of A.R.S. §§ 13-2810 (2001), -2801 (2001), -707 (2001) and -802 (2001) (count three).”
State v. Gray, 258 P.3d 242 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 13-2810(A)(2), (3) (prohibiting interfering with judicial proceedings by knowingly resisting process).”
State v. Shivers, 280 P.3d 635 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). “”) § 13-2810(A)(2) (West 2012) 1 (“A person commits interfering with judicial proceedings if such person knowingly .”
Potter v. Meza (D. Ariz. 2025). · cites it 20× “§ 13-2810(A)(2). Appeals records show seven 12 cases where her office has brought such prosecutions in the past ten years.”
State v. Sanchez, 852 P.2d 1236 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 13-2810(A)(2). Such refusal is also punishable as a contempt of court.”
Shah v. Vakharwala, 418 P.3d 974 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 6× “Jurisdiction ¶7 Vakharwala argues the superior court lacked both subject matter and personal jurisdiction to issue the 2016 protective order.4 He bases this claim on the notion that Arizona courts lack jurisdiction to prohibit conduct outside of Arizona.”
State v. Hon. brain/hu, 422 P.3d 1065 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). “By classifying § 13-2810(A)(9) as a felony because it causes unnecessary serious physical injury on an animal, it is unlikely the legislature intended to increase the punishment for cruel mistreatment beyond classifying it as a felony, distinguishing it from less-serious animal…”
Claborn v. Yuma Cnty. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 13-2810(A)(1) (2010). 5 CLABORN v.”
State v. Cleveland (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. §§ 13-2810, -3601.02 (2010); see also State v.”
Show all 18 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2810(A) — 2 cases
Douglass v. State, 195 P.3d 189 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “when Charles allegedly violated the order of protection issued on her behalf in violation of A.R.S. § 13-2810, a class one misdemeanor.”
Potter v. Meza (D. Ariz. 2025). “§ 13-2810(A)(2). Appeals records show seven 12 cases where her office has brought such prosecutions in the past ten years.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2810(A)(1) — 2 cases
Ottaway v. Smith, 113 P.3d 1247 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). “[d]isobey[ing] or resisting] the lawful order, process or other mandate of a court,” also meets the definition of “criminal contempt” found in A.”
Claborn v. Yuma Cnty. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). “A.R.S. § 13-2810(A)(1) (2010). 5 CLABORN v.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2810(A)(2) — 9 cases
Ottaway v. Smith, 113 P.3d 1247 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). “[d]isobey[ing] or resisting] the lawful order, process or other mandate of a court,” also meets the definition of “criminal contempt” found in A.”
State v. Gray, 258 P.3d 242 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). “A.R.S. § 13-2810(A)(2), (3) (prohibiting interfering with judicial proceedings by knowingly resisting process).”
State v. Shivers, 280 P.3d 635 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). “”) § 13-2810(A)(2) (West 2012) 1 (“A person commits interfering with judicial proceedings if such person knowingly .”
Douglass v. State, 195 P.3d 189 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “when Charles allegedly violated the order of protection issued on her behalf in violation of A.R.S. § 13-2810, a class one misdemeanor.”
Potter v. Meza (D. Ariz. 2025). “§ 13-2810(A)(2). Appeals records show seven 12 cases where her office has brought such prosecutions in the past ten years.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2810(A)(9) — 1 case
State v. Hon. brain/hu, 422 P.3d 1065 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). “By classifying § 13-2810(A)(9) as a felony because it causes unnecessary serious physical injury on an animal, it is unlikely the legislature intended to increase the punishment for cruel mistreatment beyond classifying it as a felony, distinguishing it from less-serious animal…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2810(B) — 1 case
Ottaway v. Smith, 113 P.3d 1247 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). “[d]isobey[ing] or resisting] the lawful order, process or other mandate of a court,” also meets the definition of “criminal contempt” found in A.”
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.