A. A person commits stalking if the person intentionally or knowingly engages in a course of conduct that is directed toward another person and if that conduct causes the victim to:
1. Suffer emotional distress or reasonably fear that either:
(a) The victim's property will be damaged or destroyed.
(b) Any of the following will be physically injured:
(i) The victim.
(ii) The victim's family member, domestic animal or livestock.
(iii) A person with whom the victim has or has previously had a romantic or sexual relationship.
(iv) A person who regularly resides in the victim's household or has resided in the victim's household within the six months before the last conduct occurred.
2. Reasonably fear death or the death of any of the following:
(a) The victim's family member, domestic animal or livestock.
(b) A person with whom the victim has or has previously had a romantic or sexual relationship.
(c) A person who regularly resides in the victim's household or has resided in the victim's household within the six months before the last conduct occurred.
B. This section does not apply to an interactive computer service, as defined in 47 United States Code section 230(f)(2), or to an information service or telecommunications service, as defined in 47 United States Code section 153, for content that is provided by another person.
C. Stalking under subsection A, paragraph 1 of this section is a class 5 felony. Stalking under subsection A, paragraph 2 of this section is a class 3 felony.
D. For the purposes of this section:
1. "Course of conduct":
(a) Means directly or indirectly, in person or through one or more third persons or by any other means, to do any of the following:
(i) Maintain visual or physical proximity to a specific person or direct verbal, written or other threats, whether express or implied, to a specific person on two or more occasions over a period of time, however short.
(ii) Use any electronic, digital or global positioning system device to surveil a specific person or a specific person's internet or wireless activity continuously for twelve hours or more or on two or more occasions over a period of time, however short, without authorization.
(iii) Communicate, or cause to be communicated, on more than one occasion words, images or language by or through the use of electronic mail or an electronic communication that is directed at a specific person without authorization and without a legitimate purpose.
(b) Does not include constitutionally protected activity or other activity authorized by law, the other person, the other person's authorized representative or if the other person is a minor, the minor's parent or guardian.
2. "Emotional distress" means significant mental suffering or distress that may, but does not have to, require medical or other professional treatment or counseling.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
19
cases (
9 in the last 5 years), 2000–2026 · leading case:
State v. Anderson, 16 P.3d 214 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).
State v. Anderson, 16 P.3d 214 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 7× “section 13-2923 (Supp.1999) unconstitutionally vague because it designates the same proscribed conduct as both a class 3 felony and a class 5 felony, thereby allowing for arbitrary enforcement? B.”
Jackson v. Schneider, 86 P.3d 381 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “1 of this title or § 13-2923 or 13-3623, if probation is available, probation may continue for a term not less than the term that is specified in subsection A of this section up to and including life and that the court believes is appropriate for the ends of justice.”
Glen Scotti v. City of Phoenix, 609 F. App'x 386 (9th Cir. 2015).
· cites it 2× “Once we excise from Freund’s report the statements Freund falsely attributed to “Dr.”
State v. Martinez (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 25× “Constitutionality of A.R.S. § 13-2923 ¶22 Martinez argues his conviction for stalking should be reversed because, he contends, the statute defining the offense, A.”
State v. Heitzmann (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 14× “Substantial Evidence Supporting the Convictions ¶28 The stalking statute, A.R.S. § 13-2923, was amended on August 6, 2016.”
State v. Munoz (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 6× “A.R.S. § 13-2923(A)(1) (2015).4 A "course of conduct" includes "[m]aintaining visual or physical proximity to a specific person or directing verbal, written or other threats, whether express or implied, to a specific person on two or more occasions over a period of time, however…”
McGhee v. Arizona, State of (D. Ariz. 2024).
· cites it 5× “Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2923 (A)(2). 1 against unidentified Defendants for interfering with his parental rights and supersedes any 2 immunities Defendants may claim under § 1280.”
State v. Brown (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 5× “§ 13- 2923(A)(2)(a), the jury necessarily rejected the available lesser-included Class-5 stalking charge, which required establishing merely emotional distress or fear of injury, A.R.S. § 13-2923(A)(1)(b)(i). The jury thus necessarily would have rejected the harassment standard…”
State v. Monyer (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “Under A.R.S. § 13-2923(A)(2)(a) an individual is guilty of stalking if, as relevant here, the individual: (1) intentionally engages in a course of conduct directed toward another that; (2) causes the victim to reasonably fear that the victim’s family member will be killed.”
State v. Woods (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 13-2923(a)(2) (elements of stalking).”
Nickel v. Potter (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 2× “1 Based on a June 2017 dispute with a former girlfriend, Father had been charged with stalking, in violation of A.R.S. § 13-2923, in Maricopa County Superior Court Case No.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2923(A) — 1 case
State v. Martinez (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).
“Constitutionality of A.R.S. § 13-2923 ¶22 Martinez argues his conviction for stalking should be reversed because, he contends, the statute defining the offense, A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2923(A)(1) — 3 cases
State v. Anderson, 16 P.3d 214 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).
“section 13-2923 (Supp.1999) unconstitutionally vague because it designates the same proscribed conduct as both a class 3 felony and a class 5 felony, thereby allowing for arbitrary enforcement? B.”
State v. Martinez (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).
“Constitutionality of A.R.S. § 13-2923 ¶22 Martinez argues his conviction for stalking should be reversed because, he contends, the statute defining the offense, A.”
State v. Munoz (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
“A.R.S. § 13-2923(A)(1) (2015).4 A "course of conduct" includes "[m]aintaining visual or physical proximity to a specific person or directing verbal, written or other threats, whether express or implied, to a specific person on two or more occasions over a period of time, however…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2923(A)(1)(b)(i) — 3 cases
State v. Heitzmann (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
“Substantial Evidence Supporting the Convictions ¶28 The stalking statute, A.R.S. § 13-2923, was amended on August 6, 2016.”
State v. Martinez (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).
“Constitutionality of A.R.S. § 13-2923 ¶22 Martinez argues his conviction for stalking should be reversed because, he contends, the statute defining the offense, A.”
State v. Brown (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026).
“§ 13- 2923(A)(2)(a), the jury necessarily rejected the available lesser-included Class-5 stalking charge, which required establishing merely emotional distress or fear of injury, A.R.S. § 13-2923(A)(1)(b)(i). The jury thus necessarily would have rejected the harassment standard…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2923(A)(2) — 4 cases
State v. Anderson, 16 P.3d 214 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).
“section 13-2923 (Supp.1999) unconstitutionally vague because it designates the same proscribed conduct as both a class 3 felony and a class 5 felony, thereby allowing for arbitrary enforcement? B.”
Glen Scotti v. City of Phoenix, 609 F. App'x 386 (9th Cir. 2015).
“Once we excise from Freund’s report the statements Freund falsely attributed to “Dr.”
State v. Heitzmann (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
“Substantial Evidence Supporting the Convictions ¶28 The stalking statute, A.R.S. § 13-2923, was amended on August 6, 2016.”
McGhee v. Arizona, State of (D. Ariz. 2024).
“Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2923 (A)(2). 1 against unidentified Defendants for interfering with his parental rights and supersedes any 2 immunities Defendants may claim under § 1280.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2923(A)(2)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Monyer (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
“Under A.R.S. § 13-2923(A)(2)(a) an individual is guilty of stalking if, as relevant here, the individual: (1) intentionally engages in a course of conduct directed toward another that; (2) causes the victim to reasonably fear that the victim’s family member will be killed.”
State v. Brown (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026).
“§ 13- 2923(A)(2)(a), the jury necessarily rejected the available lesser-included Class-5 stalking charge, which required establishing merely emotional distress or fear of injury, A.R.S. § 13-2923(A)(1)(b)(i). The jury thus necessarily would have rejected the harassment standard…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2923(C)(1)(a)(i) — 2 cases
State v. Munoz (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
“A.R.S. § 13-2923(A)(1) (2015).4 A "course of conduct" includes "[m]aintaining visual or physical proximity to a specific person or directing verbal, written or other threats, whether express or implied, to a specific person on two or more occasions over a period of time, however…”
State v. Heitzmann (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
“Substantial Evidence Supporting the Convictions ¶28 The stalking statute, A.R.S. § 13-2923, was amended on August 6, 2016.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2923(C)(2) — 1 case
State v. Munoz (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
“A.R.S. § 13-2923(A)(1) (2015).4 A "course of conduct" includes "[m]aintaining visual or physical proximity to a specific person or directing verbal, written or other threats, whether express or implied, to a specific person on two or more occasions over a period of time, however…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2923(D)(1)(a)(i) — 3 cases
State v. Martinez (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).
“Constitutionality of A.R.S. § 13-2923 ¶22 Martinez argues his conviction for stalking should be reversed because, he contends, the statute defining the offense, A.”
State v. Heitzmann (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
“Substantial Evidence Supporting the Convictions ¶28 The stalking statute, A.R.S. § 13-2923, was amended on August 6, 2016.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2923(D)(1)(b) — 1 case
State v. Martinez (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).
“Constitutionality of A.R.S. § 13-2923 ¶22 Martinez argues his conviction for stalking should be reversed because, he contends, the statute defining the offense, A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2923(a)(2) — 1 case
State v. Woods (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
“See A.R.S. § 13-2923(a)(2) (elements of stalking).”
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.