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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-404 (2026)

Justification; selfdefense

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

A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, a person is justified in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force.

B. The threat or use of physical force against another is not justified:

1. In response to verbal provocation alone; or

2. To resist an arrest that the person knows or should know is being made by a peace officer or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, whether the arrest is lawful or unlawful, unless the physical force used by the peace officer exceeds that allowed by law; or

3. If the person provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force, unless:

(a) The person withdraws from the encounter or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely withdraw from the encounter; and

(b) The other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful physical force against the person.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 118 cases (32 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case: State v. King, 235 P.3d 240 (Ariz. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. King, 235 P.3d 240 (Ariz. 2010). · cites it 15× “We granted review to clarify the elements of a justification defense under AR.S. § 13-404. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article VI, Section 5(3) of the Aizona Constitution and AR.”
State v. Flores, 260 P.3d 309 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 6× “This trend culminated in the 1977 passing of AR.S. § 13-404(B), which limited the right to resist arrest.”
State v. Lujan, 664 P.2d 646 (Ariz. 1983). · cites it 14× “A.R.S. § 13-404. The defendant was part of a continuing aggression by the occupants of the station wagon against the occupants of the Mustang.”
State v. Noriega, 690 P.2d 775 (Ariz. 1984). · cites it 10× “*482 A.R.S. § 13-404(A). Thus, the instruction must be given if an accused shows that: 1) the defendant reasonably believed that he or she was in immediate physical danger; 2) the defendant acted solely because of this belief; and 3) the defendant used no more force than…”
State v. Vogel, 85 P.3d 497 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 19× “Defendant requested and received an instruction under § 13-415, which provides that: If there have been past acts of domestic violence as defined in § 13-3601, subsection A against the defendant by the victim, the state of mind of a reasonable person under §§ 13-404, 13-405 and…”
State v. Barraza, 104 P.3d 172 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 12× “" ¶ 7 The trial court did agree that Barraza was entitled to an instruction on self-defense pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 13-404 and -405 (2001), and instructed the jury in relevant part as follows: A defendant is justified in using or threatening physical force in self-defense if the…”
State of Arizona v. Ronald Vassell, 359 P.3d 1025 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 12× “§ 13-405(A)(1) (use of deadly physical force under § 13-405 must comport with § 13-404 to be justifiable). In the context of justification, "the defendant's circumstances” include what the defendant knew at the time.”
Gortarez v. Smitty's Super Valu, Inc., 680 P.2d 807 (Ariz. 1984). · cites it 10× “Plaintiffs assert that the trial court's refusal to instruct based on provisions of *106 A.R.S. § 13-404 was error. That section provides that the threat of physical force against another is not justified: If the person provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful…”
State v. Korzep, 799 P.2d 831 (Ariz. 1990). · cites it 4× “Rather, the court determined that defendant’s justification defense was covered adequately by the self-defense instructions given under A.R.S. §§ 13-404 and 13-405. The jury returned a guilty verdict and the trial judge sentenced defendant to a term of five years.”
State v. Grannis, 900 P.2d 1 (Ariz. 1995). · cites it 6× “Under A.R.S. § 13-404, a person is justified in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful…”
State v. Williams, 644 P.2d 889 (Ariz. 1982). · cites it 5× “Section 13-404(A) permits the use of necessary force to protect oneself from unlawful force.”
State v. Bojorquez, 675 P.2d 1314 (Ariz. 1984). · cites it 8× “However, we also noted that “[h]ad the defense presented evidence satisfying all of the elements of A.R.S. § 13-404, even if this evidence was in complete conflict with the state’s evidence, appellant would have been entitled to an instruction on self-defense.”
Show all 118 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-404(A) — 48 cases
State v. King, 235 P.3d 240 (Ariz. 2010). “We granted review to clarify the elements of a justification defense under AR.S. § 13-404. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article VI, Section 5(3) of the Aizona Constitution and AR.”
State v. Noriega, 690 P.2d 775 (Ariz. 1984). “*482 A.R.S. § 13-404(A). Thus, the instruction must be given if an accused shows that: 1) the defendant reasonably believed that he or she was in immediate physical danger; 2) the defendant acted solely because of this belief; and 3) the defendant used no more force than…”
State of Arizona v. Ronald Vassell, 359 P.3d 1025 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). “§ 13-405(A)(1) (use of deadly physical force under § 13-405 must comport with § 13-404 to be justifiable). In the context of justification, "the defendant's circumstances” include what the defendant knew at the time.”
State v. Dumaine, 783 P.2d 1184 (Ariz. 1989).
State v. Vogel, 85 P.3d 497 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). “Defendant requested and received an instruction under § 13-415, which provides that: If there have been past acts of domestic violence as defined in § 13-3601, subsection A against the defendant by the victim, the state of mind of a reasonable person under §§ 13-404, 13-405 and…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-404(B) — 9 cases
State v. Flores, 260 P.3d 309 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). “This trend culminated in the 1977 passing of AR.S. § 13-404(B), which limited the right to resist arrest.”
State v. Lujan, 664 P.2d 646 (Ariz. 1983). “A.R.S. § 13-404. The defendant was part of a continuing aggression by the occupants of the station wagon against the occupants of the Mustang.”
State v. Jessen, 633 P.2d 410 (Ariz. 1981).
State of Arizona v. Ronald Vassell, 359 P.3d 1025 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). “§ 13-405(A)(1) (use of deadly physical force under § 13-405 must comport with § 13-404 to be justifiable). In the context of justification, "the defendant's circumstances” include what the defendant knew at the time.”
State v. Zamora, 681 P.2d 921 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-404(B)(1) — 3 cases
State v. Vogel, 85 P.3d 497 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). “Defendant requested and received an instruction under § 13-415, which provides that: If there have been past acts of domestic violence as defined in § 13-3601, subsection A against the defendant by the victim, the state of mind of a reasonable person under §§ 13-404, 13-405 and…”
State v. Bojorquez, 675 P.2d 1314 (Ariz. 1984). “However, we also noted that “[h]ad the defense presented evidence satisfying all of the elements of A.R.S. § 13-404, even if this evidence was in complete conflict with the state’s evidence, appellant would have been entitled to an instruction on self-defense.”
State v. Lucas, 794 P.2d 1353 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-404(B)(2) — 16 cases
State of Arizona v. Ronald Vassell, 359 P.3d 1025 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). “§ 13-405(A)(1) (use of deadly physical force under § 13-405 must comport with § 13-404 to be justifiable). In the context of justification, "the defendant's circumstances” include what the defendant knew at the time.”
State v. Fontes, 986 P.2d 897 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
State v. Celaya, 660 P.2d 849 (Ariz. 1983).
State v. Windus, 86 P.3d 384 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
State v. Sands, 700 P.2d 1369 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-404(B)(3) — 13 cases
State v. Noriega, 690 P.2d 775 (Ariz. 1984). “*482 A.R.S. § 13-404(A). Thus, the instruction must be given if an accused shows that: 1) the defendant reasonably believed that he or she was in immediate physical danger; 2) the defendant acted solely because of this belief; and 3) the defendant used no more force than…”
Gortarez v. Smitty's Super Valu, Inc., 680 P.2d 807 (Ariz. 1984). “Plaintiffs assert that the trial court's refusal to instruct based on provisions of *106 A.R.S. § 13-404 was error. That section provides that the threat of physical force against another is not justified: If the person provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful…”
Lewis v. Dirt Sports LLC, 259 F. Supp. 3d 1039 (D. Ariz. 2017).
State v. Williams, 644 P.2d 889 (Ariz. 1982). “Section 13-404(A) permits the use of necessary force to protect oneself from unlawful force.”
State v. King, 235 P.3d 240 (Ariz. 2010). “We granted review to clarify the elements of a justification defense under AR.S. § 13-404. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article VI, Section 5(3) of the Aizona Constitution and AR.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-404(B)(3)(a) — 4 cases
State v. Williams, 644 P.2d 889 (Ariz. 1982). “Section 13-404(A) permits the use of necessary force to protect oneself from unlawful force.”
State of Arizona v. Adolfo Noel Ruiz, Jr., 340 P.3d 396 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
State v. Bojorquez, 675 P.2d 1314 (Ariz. 1984). “However, we also noted that “[h]ad the defense presented evidence satisfying all of the elements of A.R.S. § 13-404, even if this evidence was in complete conflict with the state’s evidence, appellant would have been entitled to an instruction on self-defense.”
State of Arizona v. Adolfo Noel Ruiz, Jr. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-404(BX2) — 1 case
State v. Celaya, 660 P.2d 849 (Ariz. 1983).
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.