Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 36
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-2027 (2026)

Evaluation and treatment of persons charged with a crime

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

A. A court may order an evaluation and treatment at an approved treatment facility of a person who is brought before the court and charged with a crime if:

1. It appears that such person is an alcoholic, and

2. Such person, after being advised of his privilege to undergo evaluation and treatment, chooses the evaluation and treatment procedures. The court shall in no event order the person to undergo treatment and evaluation for in excess of thirty days.

B. The court shall fully apprise the person charged with the crime of the options available and the consequences which may occur.

C. The person charged with the crime has the right to legal counsel at proceedings held pursuant to this section.

D. If the court issues an order for evaluation and treatment as provided in this section, proceedings on the criminal charge or charges then pending in the court from which the order for evaluation and treatment issued shall be suspended until such time as the evaluation and treatment of the defendant and the subsequent detention of the defendant, if any, are completed. Upon completion of the evaluation and treatment, and detention, if any, the defendant shall be returned to the court where the order for evaluation and treatment was made and proceedings on the criminal charge or charges shall be resumed or dismissed. No charge or charges shall be dismissed based on defendant's failure to receive a speedy trial.

E. The cost of evaluation and treatment of an indigent patient treated pursuant to court order shall be a charge to the county, city, town or charter city whose court issued the order for evaluation.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1977–1989 · leading case: State v. Janise, 570 P.2d 499 (Ariz. 1977).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Janise, 570 P.2d 499 (Ariz. 1977). · cites it 8× “Four issues were raised, or discerned by this Court: (1) Whether the court’s failure to apprise appellant of the range of possible sentences violated his right of due process; (2) Whether sufficient independent evidence of the corpus delicti existed to permit the use of…”
State v. Guttersen, 787 P.2d 1072 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 20× “§ 13-702 (mitigating factors); (3) the trial court’s construction of the statute violates state and federal constitutional provisions pertaining to separation of powers and (4) the legislative history of A.R.S. § 36-2027 shows that the legislature intended that only petty…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-2027(A) — 1 case
State v. Guttersen, 787 P.2d 1072 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989). “§ 13-702 (mitigating factors); (3) the trial court’s construction of the statute violates state and federal constitutional provisions pertaining to separation of powers and (4) the legislative history of A.R.S. § 36-2027 shows that the legislature intended that only petty…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-2027(D) — 1 case
State v. Guttersen, 787 P.2d 1072 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989). “§ 13-702 (mitigating factors); (3) the trial court’s construction of the statute violates state and federal constitutional provisions pertaining to separation of powers and (4) the legislative history of A.R.S. § 36-2027 shows that the legislature intended that only petty…”
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.