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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-401 (2026)

Unavailability of justification defense; justification as defense

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. Even though a person is justified under this chapter in threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force against another, if in doing so such person recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the justification afforded by this chapter is unavailable in a prosecution for the reckless injury or killing of the innocent third person.

B. Except as provided in subsection A, justification, as defined in this chapter, is a defense in any prosecution for an offense pursuant to this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1973–2025 · leading case: State v. Fell, 52 P.3d 218 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Fell, 52 P.3d 218 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 10× “That statute provides: “The general rule that a penal statute is to be strictly construed does not apply to this title, but the provisions herein must be construed according to the fair meaning of their terms to promote justice and effect the objects of the law, including the…”
State ex rel. Thomas v. Duncan, 165 P.3d 238 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 10× “The State urges this court to hold that § 13-401, in prosecutions for the reckless injury or killing of an innocent third person, is an absolute bar to admitting evidence that might support a justification defense even if the evidence is properly admissible for other purposes.”
State v. Casey, 71 P.3d 351 (Ariz. 2003). · cites it 4× “§ 13-205(A) (1997), which provides: Except as otherwise provided by law, a defendant shall prove any affirmative defense raised by a preponderance of the .”
State of Arizona v. Adolfo Noel Ruiz, Jr., 340 P.3d 396 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 5× “§ 13^101, which bars the use of certain defenses to charged crimes, because it is not a statute upon which jury instructions have been based.”
State v. Cox, 155 P.3d 357 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “See generally § 13-3102 (no exceptions for knowingly possessing a prohibited weapon); see also A.R.S. §§ 13-401 through -417 (no justification defense for momentary control or control with innocent motives).”
State v. Bayardi, 281 P.3d 1063 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. §§ 13-401 to -412. By contrast, 28-1381(D) offers an exception to being found guilty under 28-1381(A)(3) when a defendant takes medication as prescribed.”
State v. Betts, 514 P.3d 341 (Kan. 2022). “"); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-401 (A) (self-defense justification "unavailable in a prosecution for the reckless injury or killing of the innocent third person"); Ark.”
Garcia v. Browning, 151 P.3d 533 (Ariz. 2007). · cites it 2× “That same section provides that “[i]f evidence of justification pursuant to [A.R.S. §§ 13-401 to -420 (2001 & Supp.2006) ] .”
State of Arizona v. Jesus Xavier Almaguer, 303 P.3d 84 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “See AR.S. § 13-401 (defendant may raise justification in defense of any criminal prosecution except reckless injury or killing of innocent third person); State v.”
State v. Kelly, 112 P.3d 682 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “1999), statutory exceptions are conceptually different from justification defenses, such as those codified at A.R.S. §§ 13-401 through 417, in that they do not excuse or justify an actor who engages in the prohibited conduct but, rather, exclude the actor from the class of…”
State of Arizona v. Sophia Leeann Richter, 424 P.3d 402 (Ariz. 2018). · cites it 2× “, A.R.S. § 13-401(A) (barring applicability of self-defense theory in prosecution for reckless injury of an innocent third party).”
Korzep v. Superior Court, 746 P.2d 44 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 13-401 et seq. See also, State v.”
Show all 32 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-401(A) — 5 cases
State ex rel. Thomas v. Duncan, 165 P.3d 238 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). “The State urges this court to hold that § 13-401, in prosecutions for the reckless injury or killing of an innocent third person, is an absolute bar to admitting evidence that might support a justification defense even if the evidence is properly admissible for other purposes.”
State of Arizona v. Sophia Leeann Richter, 424 P.3d 402 (Ariz. 2018). “, A.R.S. § 13-401(A) (barring applicability of self-defense theory in prosecution for reckless injury of an innocent third party).”
State of Arizona v. Adolfo Noel Ruiz, Jr., 340 P.3d 396 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “§ 13^101, which bars the use of certain defenses to charged crimes, because it is not a statute upon which jury instructions have been based.”
State of Arizona v. Jordan Christopher Ewer, 523 P.3d 393 (Ariz. 2023).
State of Arizona v. Adolfo Noel Ruiz, Jr. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-401(A)(3) — 1 case
State v. Bucholtz (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-401(B) — 12 cases
State v. Fell, 52 P.3d 218 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). “That statute provides: “The general rule that a penal statute is to be strictly construed does not apply to this title, but the provisions herein must be construed according to the fair meaning of their terms to promote justice and effect the objects of the law, including the…”
State v. Casey, 71 P.3d 351 (Ariz. 2003). “§ 13-205(A) (1997), which provides: Except as otherwise provided by law, a defendant shall prove any affirmative defense raised by a preponderance of the .”
Boynton v. Anderson, 66 P.3d 88 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
Williams v. Baugh, 154 P.3d 373 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
State v. Sulu-Kerr (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).
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.