A. A person who:
1. Intentionally or knowingly violates any provision of sections 38-503 through 38-505 is guilty of a class 6 felony.
2. Recklessly or negligently violates any provision of sections 38-503 through 38-505 is guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor.
B. A person found guilty of an offense described in subsection A of this section shall forfeit his public office or employment if any.
C. It is no defense to a prosecution for a violation of sections 38-503 through 38-505 that the public officer or employee to whom a benefit is offered, conferred or agreed to be conferred was not qualified or authorized to act in the desired way.
D. It is a defense to a prosecution for a violation of sections 38-503 through 38-505 that the interest charged to be substantial was a remote interest.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
4
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 2002–2025 · leading case:
Hughes v. Jorgenson, 50 P.3d 821 (Ariz. 2002).
Hughes v. Jorgenson, 50 P.3d 821 (Ariz. 2002).
· cites it 2× “DISCUSSION ¶ 8 Arizona’s conflict of interest statute precludes any public official who has a substantial interest in a public decision from participating in the decision-making process without making his interest known: Any public officer or employee who has, or whose relative…”
State v. Ross, 151 P.3d 1261 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “The verdict resulted m Ross immediately forfeiting his office, pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-510(B) (2001). The court demed the defense motion for a new trial.”
Gesell v. Cottonwood, City of (D. Ariz. 2025).
· cites it 2× “This disclosure resulted in Defendant Winkler 8 exposing the City to liability and likely violated A.R.S. § 38-510 (a), a class l 9 misdemeanor.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 38-510(A) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 38-510(B) — 2 cases
Hughes v. Jorgenson, 50 P.3d 821 (Ariz. 2002).
“DISCUSSION ¶ 8 Arizona’s conflict of interest statute precludes any public official who has a substantial interest in a public decision from participating in the decision-making process without making his interest known: Any public officer or employee who has, or whose relative…”
State v. Ross, 151 P.3d 1261 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“The verdict resulted m Ross immediately forfeiting his office, pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-510(B) (2001). The court demed the defense motion for a new trial.”
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.