Arizona Revised Statutes
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-417 (2026)
Necessity defense
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official)
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
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 injury that might reasonably result from the person's own conduct.
B. An accused person may not assert the defense under subsection A if the person intentionally, knowingly or recklessly placed himself in the situation in which it was probable that the person would have to engage in the proscribed conduct.
C. An accused person may not assert the defense under subsection A for offenses involving homicide or serious physical injury.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2002–2025 · leading case: State v. Fell, 52 P.3d 218 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
State v. Fell, 52 P.3d 218 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). “¶ 1 In this special action, petitioner State of Arizona asks us to decide whether the respondent judge erred in ruling that the real party in interest Gayle Waldstein could use the necessity defense, codified in A.R.S. § 13-417, to defend against charges filed under Title 28,…”
State of Arizona v. Sophia Leeann Richter, 424 P.3d 402 (Ariz. 2018). “Compare A.R.S. § 13-417(A), with A.R.S. § 13-412(A).”
State ex rel. Thomas v. Duncan, 165 P.3d 238 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). “An accused person may not assert the defense under subsection A if the person intentionally, knowingly or recklessly placed himself in the situation in which it was probable that the person would have to engage in the proscribed conduct. C. An accused person may not assert the…”
State v. Pina-Barajas, 418 P.3d 473 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). “Similarly, although nothing in §§ 13-417 or 13-3102 prevents a prohibited possessor from threatening force by means of a firearm, that justification is narrowly circumscribed by the tandem requirements that the threat of harm be imminent and that no reasonable alternative exists.”
State v. Medina, 418 P.3d 1134 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). “To establish a necessity defense under A.R.S. § 13-417, a defendant must show that he "was compelled to engage in the proscribed conduct and .”
State v. Cruz (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025). “See A.R.S. § 13-417. When asked whether he would request any other special jury instructions, Cruz said no.”
State v. J.V. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). “Conduct that would otherwise constitute an offense is justified by necessity “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 injury that might…”
Par. v. Lansdale (D. Ariz. 2019). “25 32 Under A.R.S. § 13-417, “conduct that would otherwise constitute an offense is justified 26 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. Leonard (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024). “¶9 The superior court instructed the jury on necessity as a justification for the charged conduct, see A.R.S. § 13-417, but denied Leonard’s request for an instruction on duress, see A.”
State v. Hendricks (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025). “See A.R.S. § 13-417. ¶2 At trial, Hendricks requested “Defense of Premises” and “Crime Prevention” instructions, see A.”
State v. Escalante (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “In Fell, this court addressed whether the necessity defense, as codified in A.R.S. § 13-417, was applicable “to defend against charges filed under Title 28, specifically, driving while under the influence of an intoxicant.”
State v. Bogie (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “” A.R.S. § 13-417(A). ¶15 Under the plain language of the statute, the precluded statements do not constitute evidence to support a necessity defense.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-417(A) — 10 cases
State v. Fell, 52 P.3d 218 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). “¶ 1 In this special action, petitioner State of Arizona asks us to decide whether the respondent judge erred in ruling that the real party in interest Gayle Waldstein could use the necessity defense, codified in A.R.S. § 13-417, to defend against charges filed under Title 28,…”
State of Arizona v. Sophia Leeann Richter, 424 P.3d 402 (Ariz. 2018). “Compare A.R.S. § 13-417(A), with A.R.S. § 13-412(A).”
State v. Pina-Barajas, 418 P.3d 473 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). “Similarly, although nothing in §§ 13-417 or 13-3102 prevents a prohibited possessor from threatening force by means of a firearm, that justification is narrowly circumscribed by the tandem requirements that the threat of harm be imminent and that no reasonable alternative exists.”
State v. Medina, 418 P.3d 1134 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). “To establish a necessity defense under A.R.S. § 13-417, a defendant must show that he "was compelled to engage in the proscribed conduct and .”
State v. J.V. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). “Conduct that would otherwise constitute an offense is justified by necessity “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 injury that might…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-417(B) — 3 cases
Par. v. Lansdale (D. Ariz. 2019). “25 32 Under A.R.S. § 13-417, “conduct that would otherwise constitute an offense is justified 26 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. Madril (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).
State v. Cruz (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025). “See A.R.S. § 13-417. When asked whether he would request any other special jury instructions, Cruz said no.”
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.