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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-303 (2026)

Criminal liability based upon conduct of another

✓ 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 is criminally accountable for the conduct of another if:

1. The person is made accountable for such conduct by the statute defining the offense; or

2. Acting with the culpable mental state sufficient for the commission of the offense, such person causes another person, whether or not such other person is capable of forming the culpable mental state, to engage in such conduct; or

3. The person is an accomplice of such other person in the commission of an offense including any offense that is a natural and probable or reasonably foreseeable consequence of the offense for which the person was an accomplice.

B. If causing a particular result is an element of an offense, a person who acts with the kind of culpability with respect to the result that is sufficient for the commission of the offense is guilty of that offense if:

1. The person solicits or commands another person to engage in the conduct causing such result; or

2. The person aids, counsels, agrees to aid or attempts to aid another person in planning or engaging in the conduct causing such result.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 84 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1963–2026 · 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 17× “¶ 13 Although, as Garnica noted, the majority rule appears to permit accomplice liability for crimes that do not require an intentional culpable mental state, our holding is compelled by Arizona statutes, specifically, §§ 13-303 and 13-301. Section 13-303(A) recites the…”
State v. McNair, 687 P.2d 1230 (Ariz. 1984). · cites it 18× “A.R.S. § 13-303. When §§ 13-301 and -303 are read together, it appears that an accomplice may be either the principal or an accessory to the crime.”
State v. Garnica, 98 P.3d 207 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 18× “…Penal Code in sections 2.06(3) and 2.06(4). Section 2.06(3) is similar to A.R.S. § 13-301 and § 2.06(4) is similar to A.R.S. § 13-303.”
State of Arizona v. Shawna Forde, 315 P.3d 1200 (Ariz. 2014). · cites it 4× “See A.R.S. §§ 13-303, -1001(A)(1), - 1105(A)(1).”
Castro v. Ballesteros-Suarez, 213 P.3d 197 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 4× “” AR.S. § 13-303(A)(3) (Supp.2008) (emphasis added).”
State v. Edwards, 446 P.2d 1 (Ariz. 1968). · cites it 20× “LOCKWOOD, Justice: Defendant Joe Edwards was informed against for the crime of Burglary by *488 Mechanical Means as set forth in A.R.S. § 13-303 (1956). That section provides: “A person who, with felonious intent, enters a building or other structure, and by use of…”
State v. Ellison, 140 P.3d 899 (Ariz. 2006). · cites it 2× “¶ 67 A defendant may be liable as an accomplice under A.R.S. § 13-303(A)(3) “only for those offenses the defendant intended to aid or aided another in planning or committing.”
State of Arizona v. George Benjamin Larin, 310 P.3d 990 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 4× “testified she saw “two gentlemen in the hallway with guns pointed at [her].” And, finally, J.W.”
State of Arizona v. Joseph Javier Romero, 381 P.3d 297 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “2d 939, 943 (1981) (accomplice to murder liable under A.R.S. § 13-303(A)(3) for substantive crime); State v.”
State v. Wiley, 698 P.2d 1244 (Ariz. 1985). · cites it 4× “A.R.S. §§ 13-303, -1304, -1507, -1902. JURY INSTRUCTION At trial, the judge gave the following instruction concerning felony murder: The crime of first degree murder requires proof of the following two things: (1) The defendant, acting either alone or with one or more persons,…”
State v. Rios, 172 P.3d 844 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “2d 542, 565 (1995) (citing in part A.R.S. § 13-303(A)). The trial court gave an instruction that tracked the language of the felony murder statute and covered all essential elements of felony murder identified by the governing statute.”
State v. Murray, 906 P.2d 542 (Ariz. 1995). · cites it 2× “Id; AR.S. § 13-303(A) (1989) (criminal liability based upon conduct of another); see State v.”
Show all 84 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-303(A) — 8 cases
State of Arizona v. George Benjamin Larin, 310 P.3d 990 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). “testified she saw “two gentlemen in the hallway with guns pointed at [her].” And, finally, J.W.”
State v. Murray, 906 P.2d 542 (Ariz. 1995). “Id; AR.S. § 13-303(A) (1989) (criminal liability based upon conduct of another); see State v.”
State v. Rios, 172 P.3d 844 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). “2d 542, 565 (1995) (citing in part A.R.S. § 13-303(A)). The trial court gave an instruction that tracked the language of the felony murder statute and covered all essential elements of felony murder identified by the governing statute.”
State v. Nelson, 150 P.3d 769 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). “¶ 13 Although, as Garnica noted, the majority rule appears to permit accomplice liability for crimes that do not require an intentional culpable mental state, our holding is compelled by Arizona statutes, specifically, §§ 13-303 and 13-301. Section 13-303(A) recites the…”
State v. Marchesano, 783 P.2d 247 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-303(A)(2) — 4 cases
State v. McNair, 687 P.2d 1230 (Ariz. 1984). “A.R.S. § 13-303. When §§ 13-301 and -303 are read together, it appears that an accomplice may be either the principal or an accessory to the crime.”
State v. Jobe, 757 P.2d 604 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
State v. Bean (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).
State v. Cortez (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-303(A)(3) — 37 cases
Castro v. Ballesteros-Suarez, 213 P.3d 197 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). “” AR.S. § 13-303(A)(3) (Supp.2008) (emphasis added).”
State v. Ellison, 140 P.3d 899 (Ariz. 2006). “¶ 67 A defendant may be liable as an accomplice under A.R.S. § 13-303(A)(3) “only for those offenses the defendant intended to aid or aided another in planning or committing.”
State of Arizona v. Joseph Javier Romero, 381 P.3d 297 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “2d 939, 943 (1981) (accomplice to murder liable under A.R.S. § 13-303(A)(3) for substantive crime); State v.”
State v. Nelson, 150 P.3d 769 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). “¶ 13 Although, as Garnica noted, the majority rule appears to permit accomplice liability for crimes that do not require an intentional culpable mental state, our holding is compelled by Arizona statutes, specifically, §§ 13-303 and 13-301. Section 13-303(A) recites the…”
State v. Rutledge, 66 P.3d 50 (Ariz. 2003).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-303(B) — 2 cases
State v. Nelson, 150 P.3d 769 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). “¶ 13 Although, as Garnica noted, the majority rule appears to permit accomplice liability for crimes that do not require an intentional culpable mental state, our holding is compelled by Arizona statutes, specifically, §§ 13-303 and 13-301. Section 13-303(A) recites the…”
State v. Garnica, 98 P.3d 207 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). “…Penal Code in sections 2.06(3) and 2.06(4). Section 2.06(3) is similar to A.R.S. § 13-301 and § 2.06(4) is similar to A.R.S. § 13-303.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-303(B)(1) — 1 case
State v. Nelson, 150 P.3d 769 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). “¶ 13 Although, as Garnica noted, the majority rule appears to permit accomplice liability for crimes that do not require an intentional culpable mental state, our holding is compelled by Arizona statutes, specifically, §§ 13-303 and 13-301. Section 13-303(A) recites the…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-303(B)(2) — 6 cases
State v. Nelson, 150 P.3d 769 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). “¶ 13 Although, as Garnica noted, the majority rule appears to permit accomplice liability for crimes that do not require an intentional culpable mental state, our holding is compelled by Arizona statutes, specifically, §§ 13-303 and 13-301. Section 13-303(A) recites the…”
State v. Garnica, 98 P.3d 207 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). “…Penal Code in sections 2.06(3) and 2.06(4). Section 2.06(3) is similar to A.R.S. § 13-301 and § 2.06(4) is similar to A.R.S. § 13-303.”
State v. King, 245 P.3d 938 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
State v. Moore (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
State v. Cortez (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-303(a)(3) — 1 case
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.