A. When a defendant is accused of a misdemeanor or petty offense for which the person injured by the act constituting the offense has a remedy by a civil action, the offense may be compromised as provided in this section, except:
1. When the offense is committed by or upon any officer of justice while in the execution of the duties of his office.
2. When the offense is committed riotously.
3. When the offense is committed with intent to commit a felony.
B. If a defendant is accused of an act involving assault, threatening or intimidating or a misdemeanor offense of domestic violence as defined in section 13-3601, the offense shall not be compromised except on recommendation of the prosecuting attorney.
C. If the party injured appears before the court in which the action is pending at any time before trial, and acknowledges that he has received satisfaction for the injury, the court may, on payment of the costs incurred, order the prosecution dismissed, and the defendant discharged. The reasons for the order shall be set forth and entered of record on the minutes and the order shall be a bar to another prosecution for the same offense.
D. No public offense shall be compromised or the prosecution or punishment upon a compromise dismissed or stayed except as provided by law.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases, 1980–2015 · leading case:
State v. Larson, 764 P.2d 749 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
State v. Larson, 764 P.2d 749 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 21× “Finn later accepted a misdemeanor compromise of the matter pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-3981, over the state’s objection, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.”
Norgord v. State Ex Rel. Berning, 33 P.3d 1166 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “¶ 19 We reject Norgord’s argument that indecent exposure does not give rise to victims’ rights because it may not be compromised under A.R.S. § 13-3981. State ex rel. Baumert v.”
State v. Superior Court, 635 P.2d 849 (Ariz. 1981).
· cites it 8× “” Pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-3981, the misdemeanor compromise statute, Livingston moved to dismiss the charge.”
State v. Dykes, 789 P.2d 1082 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 13-3981. Because the court’s sentencing responsibility and not the prosecutor’s charging function is involved here, Larson is inapplicable to this case.”
State v. Sandoval, 857 P.2d 395 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
“section 13-3981). In the absence of prior controlling court decisions interpreting A.”
State v. Ramsey, 831 P.2d 408 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992).
“section 13-3981(B) and it did not encroach upon the judicial function in so doing.”
State v. Nelles, 713 P.2d 806 (Alaska Ct. App. 1986).
“140; Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 13-3981 (1978); Cal.”
State v. Derienzo (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 23× “DISCUSSION ¶4 Under A.R.S. § 13-3981, a trial court may “compromise” and dismiss a misdemeanor offense with prejudice when the victim has a “remedy by a civil action,” the victim appears in court and acknowledges receipt of “satisfaction” for the injury and the defendant pays…”
Taylor v. Aps (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 6× “After taking the testimony, the court dismissed the prosecution under the terms of the agreement and A.R.S. § 13-3981. ¶5 A month after the criminal matter was dismissed, APS sent Taylor a shut-off warning and demanded $17,208.”
State ex rel. Baumert v. Mun. Court, 610 P.2d 63 (Ariz. 1980).
· cites it 2× “A petition for special action was filed by the Phoenix City Attorney alleging that there is confusion at both the city court level and in the superior court as to the application of the “misdemeanor compromise statute,” A.R.S. § 13-3981. The specific case at bar involves a…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3981(B) — 3 cases
State v. Larson, 764 P.2d 749 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
“Finn later accepted a misdemeanor compromise of the matter pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-3981, over the state’s objection, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.”
State v. Ramsey, 831 P.2d 408 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992).
“section 13-3981(B) and it did not encroach upon the judicial function in so doing.”
State v. Superior Court, 635 P.2d 849 (Ariz. 1981).
“” Pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-3981, the misdemeanor compromise statute, Livingston moved to dismiss the charge.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3981(C) — 1 case
Taylor v. Aps (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
“After taking the testimony, the court dismissed the prosecution under the terms of the agreement and A.R.S. § 13-3981. ¶5 A month after the criminal matter was dismissed, APS sent Taylor a shut-off warning and demanded $17,208.”
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.