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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-757 (2026)

Method of infliction of sentence of death; identity of executioners; license suspension

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

A. The penalty of death shall be inflicted by an intravenous injection of a substance or substances in a lethal quantity sufficient to cause death, under the supervision of the state department of corrections.

B. A defendant who is sentenced to death for an offense committed before November 23, 1992 shall choose either lethal injection or lethal gas at least twenty days before the execution date. If the defendant fails to choose either lethal injection or lethal gas, the penalty of death shall be inflicted by lethal injection.

C. The identity of executioners and other persons who participate or perform ancillary functions in an execution and any information contained in records that would identify those persons is confidential and is not subject to disclosure pursuant to title 39, chapter 1, article 2.

D. If a person who participates or performs ancillary functions in an execution is licensed by a board, the licensing board shall not suspend or revoke the person's license as a result of the person's participation in an execution.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2009–2022 · leading case: Cook v. State, 281 P.3d 1053 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cook v. State, 281 P.3d 1053 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 13× “¶ 2 Based on the record before us, and for the reasons discussed below, we hold A.R.S. § 13-757(A) does not violate the Arizona Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine.”
State v. KUHS, 224 P.3d 192 (Ariz. 2010). · cites it 3× “” A.R.S. § 13-757(A) (Supp.2009). Kuhs argues that § 13-757(A) is unconstitutionally vague because it “does not establish a detailed protocol of chemicals to be used .”
Joseph Wood, III v. Charles Ryan, 759 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2014). · cites it 4× “3 confidentiality statute, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-757 (C). ADC noted that it continued to look for pentobarbital and would inform Wood if it obtained the drug.”
State v. Hargrave, 234 P.3d 569 (Ariz. 2010). · cites it 2× “” AR.S. § 13-757(A) (2010). Hargrave argues that Arizona’s method of execution by lethal injection fails to provide procedural safeguards that ensure a humane execution and is unconstitutionally cruel and unusual.”
Guardian News & Media LLC v. Ryan, 225 F. Supp. 3d 859 (D. Ariz. 2016). · cites it 10× “”) §§ 13-757 and 13-758, and Arizona Department of Corrections (“ADC”) Department Order 710, (Doc.”
Kelley v. Johnson, 2016 Ark. 268 (Ark. 2016). · cites it 2× “See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-757 (C) (2010); Ga.”
Cook v. Brewer, 637 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2011). “Arizona’s protocol for execution by lethal injection requires the sequential administration of sodium thiopental, pancuronium bromide, and potassium chloride. Dickens, 631 F.3d at 1142. Sodium thiopental is a fast-acting barbiturate that anesthetizes the inmate and permits the…”
Robert Charles Towery v Janice K Brewer, 672 F.3d 650 (9th Cir. 2012). “Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 13-757(A). Absent any pattern of generally exercising the discretion in a particular manner while treating *661 one individual differently and detrimentally, there is no basis for Equal Protection scrutiny under the class-of-one theory.”
Jeffrey Landrigan v. Janice Brewer, 625 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2010). · cites it 3× “The state also adhered to its position that Ariz.Rev. Stat. § 13-757(0 preserves confidentiality of entities involved in functions ancillary to the execution process.”
Beaty v. Brewer, 791 F. Supp. 2d 678 (D. Ariz. 2011). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 13-757(B). According to his complaint, Plaintiff declined to choose.”
First Amendment Coalition of Arizona, Inc. v. Ryan, 188 F. Supp. 3d 940 (D. Ariz. 2016). · cites it 2× “In fact, nothing in the Arizona Revised Statutes or the Arizona Code of Regulations states any other substantive standards or procedural requirements for executions.”
Spreitz v. Ryan, 617 F. Supp. 2d 887 (D. Ariz. 2009). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 13-757(B). Thus, Petitioner is not “required” to make a choice or be an active participant in his own death.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-757(A) — 5 cases
Cook v. State, 281 P.3d 1053 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). “¶ 2 Based on the record before us, and for the reasons discussed below, we hold A.R.S. § 13-757(A) does not violate the Arizona Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine.”
State v. KUHS, 224 P.3d 192 (Ariz. 2010). “” A.R.S. § 13-757(A) (Supp.2009). Kuhs argues that § 13-757(A) is unconstitutionally vague because it “does not establish a detailed protocol of chemicals to be used .”
State v. Hargrave, 234 P.3d 569 (Ariz. 2010). “” AR.S. § 13-757(A) (2010). Hargrave argues that Arizona’s method of execution by lethal injection fails to provide procedural safeguards that ensure a humane execution and is unconstitutionally cruel and unusual.”
Robert Charles Towery v Janice K Brewer, 672 F.3d 650 (9th Cir. 2012). “Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 13-757(A). Absent any pattern of generally exercising the discretion in a particular manner while treating *661 one individual differently and detrimentally, there is no basis for Equal Protection scrutiny under the class-of-one theory.”
First Amendment Coalition of Arizona, Inc. v. Ryan, 188 F. Supp. 3d 940 (D. Ariz. 2016). “In fact, nothing in the Arizona Revised Statutes or the Arizona Code of Regulations states any other substantive standards or procedural requirements for executions.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-757(B) — 3 cases
Cook v. Brewer, 637 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2011). “Arizona’s protocol for execution by lethal injection requires the sequential administration of sodium thiopental, pancuronium bromide, and potassium chloride. Dickens, 631 F.3d at 1142. Sodium thiopental is a fast-acting barbiturate that anesthetizes the inmate and permits the…”
Beaty v. Brewer, 791 F. Supp. 2d 678 (D. Ariz. 2011). “See A.R.S. § 13-757(B). According to his complaint, Plaintiff declined to choose.”
Spreitz v. Ryan, 617 F. Supp. 2d 887 (D. Ariz. 2009). “See A.R.S. § 13-757(B). Thus, Petitioner is not “required” to make a choice or be an active participant in his own death.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-757(C) — 3 cases
Guardian News & Media LLC v. Ryan, 225 F. Supp. 3d 859 (D. Ariz. 2016). “”) §§ 13-757 and 13-758, and Arizona Department of Corrections (“ADC”) Department Order 710, (Doc.”
Joseph Wood, III v. Charles Ryan, 759 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2014). “3 confidentiality statute, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-757 (C). ADC noted that it continued to look for pentobarbital and would inform Wood if it obtained the drug.”
Jeffrey Landrigan v. Janice Brewer, 625 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2010). “The state also adhered to its position that Ariz.Rev. Stat. § 13-757(0 preserves confidentiality of entities involved in functions ancillary to the execution process.”
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.