Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-301 (2026)

Definition of accomplice

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

In this title, unless the context otherwise requires, "accomplice" means a person, other than a peace officer acting in his official capacity within the scope of his authority and in the line of duty, who with the intent to promote or facilitate the commission of an offense:

1. Solicits or commands another person to commit the offense; or

2. Aids, counsels, agrees to aid or attempts to aid another person in planning or committing an offense.

3. Provides means or opportunity to another person to commit the offense.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 158 cases (19 in the last 5 years), 1965–2026 · leading case: State v. Nelson, 150 P.3d 769 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Nelson, 150 P.3d 769 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 15× “A.R.S. § 13-301 (2001). ¶ 10 Nelson claims that accomplice liability may not be applied to an offense such as negligent homicide with an unintentional culpable mental state because the definition of accomplice requires that a person act intentionally.”

State v. McNair, 687 P.2d 1230 (Ariz. 1984). · cites it 18× “A.R.S. § 13-301. Under this definition, defendant could well be an accomplice of Turner.”

State v. Garnica, 98 P.3d 207 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 16× “§ 13-1203(A)(2) (2001) (emphasis added). Thus, these latter two counts are not at issue.”

State v. Wall, 126 P.3d 148 (Ariz. 2006). · cites it 4× “” A.R.S. § 13-301 (2001). Based on this language, the State maintains that Wall bears responsibility for any acts that he should reasonably foresee that his partners might commit.”

State v. Scott, 865 P.2d 792 (Ariz. 1993). · cites it 8× “See A.R.S. § 13-301. There is substantial evidence upon which the jury could find defendant guilty as an accomplice.”

State v. Rios, 172 P.3d 844 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 10× “A.R.S. § 13-301 (2001). To obtain a conviction for felony murder on the theory of accomplice liability, therefore, “[t]he state need only prove that defendant, either as a principal or as an accomplice, committed or attempted to commit robbery and that someone was killed in the…”

Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183 (2007). · cites it 2× “Code Ann., Tit. 11, § 271 (1995); D.C.Code § 22-1805 (2001); Fla.”

State of Arizona v. Phil Gutierrez, 278 P.3d 1276 (Ariz. 2012). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. §§ 13-301, -303. ¶ 16 After receiving the State’s response to the Rule 32 petition and Gutierrez’s reply, the superior court held a status conference.”

State v. Felix, 349 P.3d 1117 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 4× “Felix nevertheless maintains that, because the prosecutor argued Felix need not be the actual shooter to be held responsible as an accomplice to the shooter, the use of the phrase “serious physical injury” when instructing on attempted second-degree murder.”

State v. Maldonado, 78 P.3d 1060 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “§ 8-201(2)(1999); A.R.S. §§ 13-301, 13-3 03 (A)(3), 13-604.”

State v. Tison, 633 P.2d 335 (Ariz. 1981). · cites it 4× “§ 13-139 (now A.R.S. § 13-301 et seq.): "All persons concerned in the commission of a crime * * * whether they directly *538 commit the act constituting the offense, or aid and abet in its commission, or, not being present, have advised and encouraged its commission * * * are…”

State v. Carlson, 48 P.3d 1180 (Ariz. 2002). · cites it 4× “*1193 ¶ 47 If, rather than a tort concept of foreseeability, we apply the criminal law concept of mens rea to this case, we see that Defendant was not present during commission of the crime, did not supply the murder weapon, and was not involved in planning the details or method…”

Show all 158 citing cases →

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-301(1) — 4 cases

State v. Decker, 365 P.3d 954 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).

State v. Herrera, Jr., 859 P.2d 131 (Ariz. 1993).

State v. Altamirano, 803 P.2d 425 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).

State v. Shields (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-301(2) — 21 cases

State v. McNair, 687 P.2d 1230 (Ariz. 1984). “A.R.S. § 13-301. Under this definition, defendant could well be an accomplice of Turner.”

State v. Wall, 126 P.3d 148 (Ariz. 2006). “” A.R.S. § 13-301 (2001). Based on this language, the State maintains that Wall bears responsibility for any acts that he should reasonably foresee that his partners might commit.”

State v. Rudi Apelt, 861 P.2d 654 (Ariz. 1993).

State v. Baldenegro, 932 P.2d 275 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996).

State v. Noriega, 928 P.2d 706 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-301(3) — 2 cases

State v. Maldonado, 78 P.3d 1060 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). “§ 8-201(2)(1999); A.R.S. §§ 13-301, 13-3 03 (A)(3), 13-604.”

Bernal v. Jensen (D. Ariz. 2022).

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.