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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-412 (2026)

Duress

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

A. Conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is justified if a reasonable person would believe that he was compelled to engage in the proscribed conduct by the threat or use of immediate physical force against his person or the person of another which resulted or could result in serious physical injury which a reasonable person in the situation would not have resisted.

B. The defense provided by subsection A is unavailable if the person intentionally, knowingly or recklessly placed himself in a situation in which it was probable that he would be subjected to duress.

C. The defense provided by subsection A is unavailable for offenses involving homicide or serious physical injury.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 42 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1974–2026 · leading case: State of Arizona v. Sophia Leeann Richter, 424 P.3d 402 (Ariz. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State of Arizona v. Sophia Leeann Richter, 424 P.3d 402 (Ariz. 2018). · cites it 35× “2d at 660 (holding that a statute permitting evidence of battered woman syndrome does not apply to a defense of coercion and duress where its plain language "expressly limits its reach to the affirmative defense of self-defense").”
State v. Ellison, 140 P.3d 899 (Ariz. 2006). · cites it 4× “¶ 51 This, however, does not mean that the statements are relevant to Ellison’s guilt.”
State v. Kinslow, 799 P.2d 844 (Ariz. 1990). · cites it 7× “Duress Defense The elements of the duress defense are codified in A.R.S. § 13-412(A): Conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is justified if a reasonable person would believe that he was compelled to engage in the proscribed conduct by the threat or use of immediate…”
State v. Encinas, 647 P.2d 624 (Ariz. 1982). · cites it 4× “1 A.R.S. § 13-412(C) provides that the duress defense “is unavailable for offenses involving homicide or serious physical injury.”
State of Arizona v. Thomas Michael Riley, 459 P.3d 66 (Ariz. 2020). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 13-412(C). Because Riley’s defense did not rely on any such justification, the instruction did not impact his defense.”
State ex rel. Thomas v. Duncan, 165 P.3d 238 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 13-412. Necessity defense A. Conduct that would otherwise constitute an offense is justified if a reasonable person was compelled to engage in the proscribed conduct and the person had no reasonable alternative to avoid imminent public or private injury greater than the…”
State v. Berndt, 672 P.2d 1311 (Ariz. 1983). · cites it 4× “R.S. §§ 13-1101(2), 13-1105. Whether the jury convicted appellant of premeditated or felony murder, the plain language of A.”
State of Arizona v. Heulon Colston Brown, 310 P.3d 29 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 3× “3d at 140 ; see also A.R.S. § 13-412(C) (duress defense unavailable for offenses involving homicide or serious physical injury); State v.”
State v. Moody, 968 P.2d 578 (Ariz. 1998). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 13-412. ¶ 15 Grills’ response to the prosecutor’s motion described the difficulties he was having with the defendant.”
State v. Rumble, 680 S.W.2d 939 (Mo. 1984). · cites it 2× “The court held that "[f]irst degree murder, whether premeditated or felony murder, is, of course, a homicide [and] whether the jury convicted appellant of premeditated or felony murder, the plain language of A.R.S. § 13-412(c) bars duress as a defense.”
State v. Jeffrey, 50 P.3d 861 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 3× “¶ 9 No Arizona court has determined whether the duress defense contained in A.R.S. § 13-412 negates an element of the charged crime or simply excuses otherwise criminal conduct.”
Tully v. State, 730 P.2d 1206 (Okla. Crim. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “[2] For those that by statute exclude duress as a defense to certain serious offenses, See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-412 (1978) (homicide or serious physical injury); Colo.”
Show all 42 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-412(A) — 17 cases
State of Arizona v. Sophia Leeann Richter, 424 P.3d 402 (Ariz. 2018). “2d at 660 (holding that a statute permitting evidence of battered woman syndrome does not apply to a defense of coercion and duress where its plain language "expressly limits its reach to the affirmative defense of self-defense").”
State v. Kinslow, 799 P.2d 844 (Ariz. 1990). “Duress Defense The elements of the duress defense are codified in A.R.S. § 13-412(A): Conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is justified if a reasonable person would believe that he was compelled to engage in the proscribed conduct by the threat or use of immediate…”
State v. Bojorquez, 675 P.2d 1314 (Ariz. 1984).
State v. Belyeu, 795 P.2d 229 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
State v. Jeffrey, 50 P.3d 861 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). “¶ 9 No Arizona court has determined whether the duress defense contained in A.R.S. § 13-412 negates an element of the charged crime or simply excuses otherwise criminal conduct.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-412(B) — 3 cases
State v. Kinslow, 799 P.2d 844 (Ariz. 1990). “Duress Defense The elements of the duress defense are codified in A.R.S. § 13-412(A): Conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is justified if a reasonable person would believe that he was compelled to engage in the proscribed conduct by the threat or use of immediate…”
Williams v. State, 646 A.2d 1101 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1994).
State v. Nimer (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-412(C) — 13 cases
State v. Ellison, 140 P.3d 899 (Ariz. 2006). “¶ 51 This, however, does not mean that the statements are relevant to Ellison’s guilt.”
State v. Encinas, 647 P.2d 624 (Ariz. 1982). “1 A.R.S. § 13-412(C) provides that the duress defense “is unavailable for offenses involving homicide or serious physical injury.”
State of Arizona v. Thomas Michael Riley, 459 P.3d 66 (Ariz. 2020). “See A.R.S. § 13-412(C). Because Riley’s defense did not rely on any such justification, the instruction did not impact his defense.”
State v. Berndt, 672 P.2d 1311 (Ariz. 1983). “R.S. §§ 13-1101(2), 13-1105. Whether the jury convicted appellant of premeditated or felony murder, the plain language of A.”
State of Arizona v. Heulon Colston Brown, 310 P.3d 29 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). “3d at 140 ; see also A.R.S. § 13-412(C) (duress defense unavailable for offenses involving homicide or serious physical injury); State v.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-412(c) — 1 case
State v. Rumble, 680 S.W.2d 939 (Mo. 1984). “The court held that "[f]irst degree murder, whether premeditated or felony murder, is, of course, a homicide [and] whether the jury convicted appellant of premeditated or felony murder, the plain language of A.R.S. § 13-412(c) bars duress as a defense.”
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.