Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 13

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-407

Justification; use of physical force in defense of premises

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

13-407. Justification; use of physical force in defense of premises

A. A person or his agent in lawful possession or control of premises is justified in threatening to use deadly physical force or in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent that a reasonable person would believe it immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by the other person in or upon the premises.

B. A person may use deadly physical force under subsection A only in the defense of himself or third persons as described in sections 13-405 and 13-406.

C. In this section, "premises" means any real property and any structure, movable or immovable, permanent or temporary, adapted for both human residence and lodging whether occupied or not.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1989–2026 · leading case: State v. Hussain
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Hussain (1997) arizctapp · cites it 8× “§ 13-411(A); (3) in defense of premises, see A.R.S. § 13-407; and (4) in defense of property, see A.”
May v. Ryan (2017) azd “the enactment of § 13-407(E) did not significantly change the way courts treated sexual interest.”
State v. Korzep (1990) ariz “…§§ 13-404 (nondeadly force) and 13-405 (deadly force); defense of a third person, § 13-406; defense of premises, § 13-407; defense of property, § 13-408; and law enforcement, §§ 13-409 (nondeadly force) and 13-410 (deadly force). Section 13-411, however, differs from…”
State v. Thomason (1989) arizctapp “…deadly physical force in self-defense, §§ 13-404 and -405, defense of a third person, § 13-406, defense of premises, § 13-407, defense of property, § 13-408, and law enforcement, §§ 13-409 and -410. Section 13-411, however, differs somewhat from these other sections. Under §…”
State of Arizona v. John Logan Brown (2025) ariz · cites it 25× “§ 13-418; the defense of premises, A.R.S. § 13-407; and the presumption that applies to these defenses, A.”
State v. Castleberry (2026) arizctapp · cites it 10× “§ 13-406), defense of premises (A.R.S. § 13-407), defense of a residential structure (A.”
Miller v. Miller (2022) arizctapp · cites it 4× “” A.R.S. § 13-407; A.R.S. § 13-3601(B). ¶13 Despite testimony that Alexandra was at Sean’s home without his permission, as well as testimony and video evidence that Sean repeatedly asked Alexandra to leave, the superior court refused to consider or admit any evidence of…”
Parish v. Lansdale (2019) azd · cites it 4× “Whether Parish’s reliance on A.R.S. § 13-407 is viable depends on 25 the jury’s determination of factual questions regarding the circumstances of Officer 26 23 Criminal trespass in the third degree occurs when a person “[k]nowingly enter[s] or 27 remain[s] unlawfully on any real…”
State v. Button (2025) arizctapp · cites it 4× “He argued at trial that his conduct was justified as a defense of premises under A.R.S. § 13-407. The jury was unconvinced—finding him guilty of four counts of aggravated assault, four counts of disorderly conduct involving a weapon, and four counts of endangerment.”
Burgess v. Barari (2025) arizctapp · cites it 3× “Rozum, 1 CA-CV 14-0734 FC, at *2, ¶ 9; see also A.R.S. §§ 13-407 (“use of physical force in defense of premises”), -408 (“use of physical force in defense of property”).”
Arias-Luna 246085 v. Shinn (2021) azd · cites it 2× “1(e), which allows PCR relief 20 when confronted with newly discovered material facts that probably would have changed 21 the judgment or sentence, Petitioner argues that he should be allowed to cure the default 22 because a newly discovered material fact exists in the form of…”
State v. Hendricks (2025) arizctapp · cites it 2× “¶2 At trial, Hendricks requested “Defense of Premises” and “Crime Prevention” instructions, see A.R.S. §§ 13-407, 13-411, but did not specifically request a necessity defense instruction.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-407(A) — 3 cases
State v. Hussain (1997) arizctapp “§ 13-411(A); (3) in defense of premises, see A.R.S. § 13-407; and (4) in defense of property, see A.”
State of Arizona v. John Logan Brown (2025) ariz “§ 13-418; the defense of premises, A.R.S. § 13-407; and the presumption that applies to these defenses, A.”
Parish v. Lansdale (2019) azd “Whether Parish’s reliance on A.R.S. § 13-407 is viable depends on 25 the jury’s determination of factual questions regarding the circumstances of Officer 26 23 Criminal trespass in the third degree occurs when a person “[k]nowingly enter[s] or 27 remain[s] unlawfully on any real…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-407(B) — 2 cases
State v. Hussain (1997) arizctapp “§ 13-411(A); (3) in defense of premises, see A.R.S. § 13-407; and (4) in defense of property, see A.”
State v. Castleberry (2026) arizctapp “§ 13-406), defense of premises (A.R.S. § 13-407), defense of a residential structure (A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-407(C) — 1 case
State of Arizona v. John Logan Brown (2025) ariz “§ 13-418; the defense of premises, A.R.S. § 13-407; and the presumption that applies to these defenses, A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-407(E) — 2 cases
May v. Ryan (2017) azd “the enactment of § 13-407(E) did not significantly change the way courts treated sexual interest.”
Arias-Luna 246085 v. Shinn (2021) azd “1(e), which allows PCR relief 20 when confronted with newly discovered material facts that probably would have changed 21 the judgment or sentence, Petitioner argues that he should be allowed to cure the default 22 because a newly discovered material fact exists in the form of…”
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.