13-421. Justification; defensive display of a firearm; definition
A. The defensive display of a firearm by a person against another is justified when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the use or attempted use of unlawful physical force or deadly physical force.
B. This section does not apply to a person who:
1. Intentionally provokes another person to use or attempt to use unlawful physical force.
2. Uses a firearm during the commission of a serious offense as defined in section 13-706 or violent crime as defined in section 13-901.03.
C. This section does not require the defensive display of a firearm before the use of physical force or the threat of physical force by a person who is otherwise justified in the use or threatened use of physical force.
D. For the purposes of this section, "defensive display of a firearm" includes:
1. Verbally informing another person that the person possesses or has available a firearm.
2. Exposing or displaying a firearm in a manner that a reasonable person would understand was meant to protect the person against another's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force or deadly physical force.
3. Placing the person's hand on a firearm while the firearm is contained in a pocket, purse or other means of containment or transport.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
50
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1964–2024 · leading case:
State v. McGann, 645 P.2d 811 (Ariz. 1982).
State v. McGann, 645 P.2d 811 (Ariz. 1982).
· cites it 8× “GORDON, Vice Chief Justice: Appellant, representing himself and assisted by advisory counsel, was convicted of four counts of forgery in violation of former A.R.S. § 13-421 [now A.R.S. § 13-2002]. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions after an appeal through advisory…”
Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (1980).
· cites it 2× “14, §§ 199, 207 (1958) (1 to 20 years); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-421 (Supp. 1957-1978) (1 to 14 years); Ark.”
State v. Singh, 419 P.2d 403 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1966).
· cites it 12× “We are called upon to determine: (1) whether the presenting of a document to a notary public for acknowledgement of a forged signature is "passing", "publishing" or "uttering" within the meaning of the Arizona forgery statute (13-421 A.”
State v. McFall, 439 P.2d 805 (Ariz. 1968).
· cites it 8× “The crime of forgery is defined in A.R.S. § 13-421. "A. A person is guilty of forgery who, with intent to defraud: "1.”
State v. Gomez, 553 P.2d 1233 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1976).
· cites it 4× “This is an appeal from convictions of forgery, A.R.S. § 13-421, and theft by embezzlement, A.”
State v. Ulmer, 519 P.2d 867 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1974).
· cites it 9× “The state has appealed from the trial court’s order quashing the information which charged the defendant-appellee with a violation of A.R.S. § 13-421, forgery. In his motion to quash, the defendant contended that he had been charged under the wrong statute.”
State v. Maxwell, 445 P.2d 837 (Ariz. 1968).
· cites it 6× “He contended that the State had failed to allege in the information that the purportedly forged instrument was passed with intent to defraud and was passed with knowledge that it was a forged instrument. The Court heard arguments on the motion and thereafter denied the motion to…”
State v. Tucker, 548 P.2d 1188 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1976).
· cites it 4× “She was indicted by the Pinal County grand jury on April 7, 1975, and on July 28, 1975, after a jury trial, she was convicted of 13 counts of forgery, violations of A.R.S. § 13-421. Appellant was sentenced one to three years on each count, the sentences to run concurrently.”
State v. Dungan, 718 P.2d 1010 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 2× “He should have been charged under A.R.S. § 13-421. We have reviewed the statutes in Bollander and we find their wording even more closely related than the wording of §§ 32-1970 and 36-2531.”
State v. Smith, 407 P.2d 74 (Ariz. 1965).
· cites it 3× “He contends that this denial resulted in his receiving a greater sentence than he would have otherwise received under A.R.S. § 13-421. Section 13-1649 provides that in certain cases of prior conviction (including petit theft) punishment on a subsequent offense shall be as…”
State v. King, 569 P.2d 295 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 4× “The appellant, Clarence King, seeks by this appeal to invalidate his conviction for forgery, A.R.S. § 13-421, which was based upon a plea of no contest.”
State v. Adamson, 680 P.2d 1259 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 4× “” (Emphasis added) A.R.S. § 13-421 (repealed Laws 1977, Chap.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-421(A) — 2 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-421(A)(1) — 2 cases
State v. Gomez, 553 P.2d 1233 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1976).
“This is an appeal from convictions of forgery, A.R.S. § 13-421, and theft by embezzlement, A.”
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.