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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-411 (2026)

Justification; use of force in crime prevention; applicability

✓ current as of May 2026 Cite as: Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-411 (2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's commission of arson of an occupied structure under section 13-1704, burglary in the second or first degree under section 13-1507 or 13-1508, kidnapping under section 13-1304, manslaughter under section 13-1103, second or first degree murder under section 13-1104 or 13-1105, sexual conduct with a minor under section 13-1405, sexual assault under section 13-1406, child molestation under section 13-1410, armed robbery under section 13-1904 or aggravated assault under section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2.

B. There is no duty to retreat before threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force justified by subsection A of this section.

C. A person is presumed to be acting reasonably for the purposes of this section if the person is acting to prevent what the person reasonably believes is the imminent or actual commission of any of the offenses listed in subsection A of this section.

D. This section includes the use or threatened use of physical force or deadly physical force in a person's home, residence, place of business, land the person owns or leases, conveyance of any kind, or any other place in this state where a person has a right to be.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 46 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case: State v. Barraza
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Barraza (2005) arizctapp · cites it 110× “¶ 23 The purpose of the justification defense available under A.R.S. § 13-411 is "to restore the total sanctity of the home in Arizona.”
Korzep v. Superior Court (1991) arizctapp · cites it 97× “After a new indictment issued on February 5, 1988 for voluntary manslaughter, the trial court denied her second motion to remand based on failure to instruct the grand jury on A.R.S. § 13-411. The case proceeded to trial and ended with a manslaughter verdict.”
State v. Korzep (1990) ariz · cites it 42× “Roberta Korzep (defendant) petitioned for review of the court of appeals’ decision affirming her conviction and the trial court’s refusal to instruct the jury on, among other things, the justification defense under A.R.S. § 13-411. We granted review on one of defendant’s issues…”
State v. Taylor (1991) ariz · cites it 25× “We granted review to determine: (1) whether the trial court erred by refusing to give a justification instruction pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-411, and (2) whether the trial court erred by precluding evidence of the victim’s prior conviction for child abuse.”
State v. Thomason (1989) arizctapp · cites it 26× “The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred by refusing to give a jury instruction based on A.R.S. § 13-411. 1 We find no error. *364 FACTS Defendant is a mechanic, inventor, and businessman in the construction industry.”
State of Arizona v. Andy Daniel Almeida (2015) arizctapp · cites it 16× “On appeal, he contends the trial court committed reversible error by denying his requested jury instruction on the crime-prevention justification afforded by A.R.S. § 13-411. 1 We agree and therefore reverse his conviction.”
State v. Hussain (1997) arizctapp · cites it 21× “”) section 13-411. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The victim, “Billy,” first met defendant on the afternoon of April 27, 1995.”
State v. Garfield (2004) arizctapp · cites it 13× “and in order to prevent a crime from occurring [pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-411].” He maintains that his conviction should be set aside because he proved his defenses by a preponderance of the evidence.”
State v. Martinez (2002) arizctapp · cites it 20× “A.R.S. § 13-411. Defendant argued that his girlfriend’s brothers were going to kill him and he did not know that police officers were outside his residence.”
State v. Korzep (1989) arizctapp · cites it 33× “The primary issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on “justification” pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-411. 1 This statute sets forth the circumstances in which there is justification for the use of deadly physical force by a household resi *177…”
State v. Ruggiero (2005) arizctapp · cites it 4× “A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other’s commission of .”
State v. Anderson (2005) ariz · cites it 2× “sexual assault----” A.R.S. § 13-411(A) (1989). A defendant is entitled *344 to a justification instruction if there is evidence of justification for the defensive act.”
Show all 46 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-411(0) — 3 cases
State of Arizona v. Andy Daniel Almeida (2015) arizctapp “On appeal, he contends the trial court committed reversible error by denying his requested jury instruction on the crime-prevention justification afforded by A.R.S. § 13-411. 1 We agree and therefore reverse his conviction.”
Korzep v. Superior Court (1991) arizctapp “After a new indictment issued on February 5, 1988 for voluntary manslaughter, the trial court denied her second motion to remand based on failure to instruct the grand jury on A.R.S. § 13-411. The case proceeded to trial and ended with a manslaughter verdict.”
State v. Martinez (2002) arizctapp “A.R.S. § 13-411. Defendant argued that his girlfriend’s brothers were going to kill him and he did not know that police officers were outside his residence.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-411(A) — 25 cases
Korzep v. Superior Court (1991) arizctapp “After a new indictment issued on February 5, 1988 for voluntary manslaughter, the trial court denied her second motion to remand based on failure to instruct the grand jury on A.R.S. § 13-411. The case proceeded to trial and ended with a manslaughter verdict.”
State v. Hussain (1997) arizctapp “”) section 13-411. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The victim, “Billy,” first met defendant on the afternoon of April 27, 1995.”
State v. Anderson (2005) ariz “sexual assault----” A.R.S. § 13-411(A) (1989). A defendant is entitled *344 to a justification instruction if there is evidence of justification for the defensive act.”
State of Arizona v. Andy Daniel Almeida (2015) arizctapp “On appeal, he contends the trial court committed reversible error by denying his requested jury instruction on the crime-prevention justification afforded by A.R.S. § 13-411. 1 We agree and therefore reverse his conviction.”
State v. Martinez (2002) arizctapp “A.R.S. § 13-411. Defendant argued that his girlfriend’s brothers were going to kill him and he did not know that police officers were outside his residence.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-411(B) — 4 cases
State v. Korzep (1990) ariz “Roberta Korzep (defendant) petitioned for review of the court of appeals’ decision affirming her conviction and the trial court’s refusal to instruct the jury on, among other things, the justification defense under A.R.S. § 13-411. We granted review on one of defendant’s issues…”
People v. Toler (2000) colo
State v. Thomason (1989) arizctapp “The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred by refusing to give a jury instruction based on A.R.S. § 13-411. 1 We find no error. *364 FACTS Defendant is a mechanic, inventor, and businessman in the construction industry.”
State of Arizona v. Roger Delane Wilson (2022) arizctapp
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-411(C) — 14 cases
Korzep v. Superior Court (1991) arizctapp “After a new indictment issued on February 5, 1988 for voluntary manslaughter, the trial court denied her second motion to remand based on failure to instruct the grand jury on A.R.S. § 13-411. The case proceeded to trial and ended with a manslaughter verdict.”
State of Arizona v. Andy Daniel Almeida (2015) arizctapp “On appeal, he contends the trial court committed reversible error by denying his requested jury instruction on the crime-prevention justification afforded by A.R.S. § 13-411. 1 We agree and therefore reverse his conviction.”
State v. Korzep (1990) ariz “Roberta Korzep (defendant) petitioned for review of the court of appeals’ decision affirming her conviction and the trial court’s refusal to instruct the jury on, among other things, the justification defense under A.R.S. § 13-411. We granted review on one of defendant’s issues…”
State v. Martinez (2002) arizctapp “A.R.S. § 13-411. Defendant argued that his girlfriend’s brothers were going to kill him and he did not know that police officers were outside his residence.”
State v. Thomason (1989) arizctapp “The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred by refusing to give a jury instruction based on A.R.S. § 13-411. 1 We find no error. *364 FACTS Defendant is a mechanic, inventor, and businessman in the construction industry.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-411(D) — 3 cases
State v. Haney (2009) arizctapp
State of Arizona v. Roger Delane Wilson (2022) arizctapp
State v. Benson (2014) arizctapp
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.