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, No. 1 CA-CR 24-0100 (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 20, 2025).
· cites it 25× “¶23 A statute is unconstitutionally vague if “it does not give persons of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to learn what it prohibits and does not provide explicit instructions for those who will apply it.”
State v. Heitzmann, No. 1 CA-CR 18-0136 (Ariz. Ct. App. June 11, 2019).
· cites it 14× “and that person in fact fear[ed] death of that person.”
State v. Munoz, No. 1 CA-CR 17-0270 (Ariz. Ct. App. June 5, 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, No. 3:23-cv-08601 (D. Ariz. Apr. 17, 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, No. 1 CA-CR 25-0157 PRPC (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2026).
· cites it 5× “at 247 (conviction “of the highest offense, to the exclusion of the immediately lesser-included offense . . .”
State v. Monyer, No. 1 CA-CR 17-0729 (Ariz. Ct. App. Sept. 27, 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, No. 1 CA-CR 18-0112 (Ariz. Ct. App. Dec. 20, 2018).
· cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 13-2923(a)(2) (elements of stalking).”
Nickel v. Potter, No. 1 CA-CV 20-0685-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Jan. 11, 2022).
· cites it 2× “In September 2020, he pled guilty to attempted stalking, a class six undesignated felony and domestic violence offense, and the court placed him on supervised probation for two years.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2923(A): 1 case
State v. Martinez, No. 1 CA-CR 24-0100 (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 20, 2025).
“¶23 A statute is unconstitutionally vague if “it does not give persons of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to learn what it prohibits and does not provide explicit instructions for those who will apply it.”
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, No. 1 CA-CR 24-0100 (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 20, 2025).
“¶23 A statute is unconstitutionally vague if “it does not give persons of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to learn what it prohibits and does not provide explicit instructions for those who will apply it.”
State v. Munoz, No. 1 CA-CR 17-0270 (Ariz. Ct. App. June 5, 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, No. 1 CA-CR 18-0136 (Ariz. Ct. App. June 11, 2019).
“and that person in fact fear[ed] death of that person.”
State v. Martinez, No. 1 CA-CR 24-0100 (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 20, 2025).
“¶23 A statute is unconstitutionally vague if “it does not give persons of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to learn what it prohibits and does not provide explicit instructions for those who will apply it.”
State v. Brown, No. 1 CA-CR 25-0157 PRPC (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2026).
“at 247 (conviction “of the highest offense, to the exclusion of the immediately lesser-included offense . . .”
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, No. 1 CA-CR 18-0136 (Ariz. Ct. App. June 11, 2019).
“and that person in fact fear[ed] death of that person.”
McGhee v. Arizona, State of, No. 3:23-cv-08601 (D. Ariz. Apr. 17, 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, No. 1 CA-CR 17-0729 (Ariz. Ct. App. Sept. 27, 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, No. 1 CA-CR 25-0157 PRPC (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2026).
“at 247 (conviction “of the highest offense, to the exclusion of the immediately lesser-included offense . . .”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2923(C)(1)(a)(i): 2 cases
State v. Munoz, No. 1 CA-CR 17-0270 (Ariz. Ct. App. June 5, 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, No. 1 CA-CR 18-0136 (Ariz. Ct. App. June 11, 2019).
“and that person in fact fear[ed] death of that person.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2923(C)(2): 1 case
State v. Munoz, No. 1 CA-CR 17-0270 (Ariz. Ct. App. June 5, 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, No. 1 CA-CR 24-0100 (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 20, 2025).
“¶23 A statute is unconstitutionally vague if “it does not give persons of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to learn what it prohibits and does not provide explicit instructions for those who will apply it.”
State v. Heitzmann, No. 1 CA-CR 18-0136 (Ariz. Ct. App. June 11, 2019).
“and that person in fact fear[ed] death of that person.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2923(D)(1)(b): 1 case
State v. Martinez, No. 1 CA-CR 24-0100 (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 20, 2025).
“¶23 A statute is unconstitutionally vague if “it does not give persons of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to learn what it prohibits and does not provide explicit instructions for those who will apply it.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2923(a)(2): 1 case
State v. Woods, No. 1 CA-CR 18-0112 (Ariz. Ct. App. Dec. 20, 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.