Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 39
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 39-161 (2026)

Presentment of false instrument for filing; classification

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

A person who acknowledges, certifies, notarizes, procures or offers to be filed, registered or recorded in a public office in this state an instrument he knows to be false or forged, which, if genuine, could be filed, registered or recorded under any law of this state or the United States, or in compliance with established procedure is guilty of a class 6 felony. As used in this section "instrument" includes a written instrument as defined in section 13-2001.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1961–2025 · leading case: Steinberger v. McVey, 318 P.3d 419 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Steinberger v. McVey, 318 P.3d 419 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 24× “unt Nine: Negligence Per Se ¶ 54 Steinberger’s negligence per se claim was dismissed based on Respondents’ arguments that: (1) Steinberger had provided “no plausible factual support” for this claim, (2) the complaint did not properly allege that Respondents violated a criminal…”
State v. Jones, 218 P.3d 1012 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 41× “We conclude an instrument that contains an untrue statement falls within A.R.S. § 39-161 only if the instrument is counterfeit, inauthentic or otherwise not gen *557 uine.”
State v. Fogel, 492 P.2d 742 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1972). · cites it 8× “The State maintains that since these instru *249 ments violate A.R.S. § 39-161, 2 and since the county recorder must record all instruments that are acknowledged, ergo, the defendants are guilty of falsifying public records, a crime for which there is no statute of limitations.”
Silving v. Wells Fargo Bank, Na, 800 F. Supp. 2d 1055 (D. Ariz. 2011). · cites it 2× “This claim alleges that Defendants were per se negligent when they allowed, acquiesced in, or sent documents to the Maricopa County Recorder that contained false and unauthorized signatures in violation of A.R.S. § 39-161. Doc. 1-1 ¶ 191. It also alleges that Defendants violated…”
Gardner v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 258 F. Supp. 3d 956 (D. Ariz. 2017). · cites it 3× “In Count Five, plaintiffs assert negligence per se claims, which are based on allegations that defendants violated A.R.S. §§ 39-161 and 33-420. “ mere a valid statute, enacted for the public safety, or governmental regulations made in pursuance thereof, provide that a certain…”
State v. Royer, 724 P.2d 587 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 8× “Defendant Arthur Douglas Royer was charged with filing a false instrument in violation of A.R.S. § 39-161. Following a jury trial, he was convicted of the offense and placed on three years probation.”
State v. Daymus, 367 P.2d 647 (Ariz. 1961). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 39-161. It cannot be denied that the nature of the felony, “false oath in bankruptcy” bears directly on the issue of defendant’s credibility as a witness.”
Miller v. People, 54 V.I. 398 (2010). · cites it 2× “” Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 39-161 (1999). We note that the Arizona statute criminalizing falsification of public records, Ariz.”
State v. Edgar, 605 P.2d 450 (Ariz. 1979). · cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 39-161 1 . We have jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 31.”
State v. Edgar, 605 P.2d 454 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 8× “Appellant was convicted after a trial by jury on September 30, 1976 of knowingly procuring or offering a false or forged instrument to be filed in violation of the then current version of A.R.S. § 39-161. He filed timely motions to vacate the judgment and for a new trial, and…”
Sutto, Jr. v. Bonham (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 8× “In a separate answer, Bonham reasserted his claim that the superior court lacked jurisdiction and cited A.R.S. § 39-161 as an affirmative defense, without providing any explanation.”
Allen v. Wells Fargo (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 3× “A.R.S. § 39-161. ¶28 In its motion for summary judgment, Wells Fargo asserted in part that Appellants had not and could not establish that Wells Fargo had knowledge any of the Recorded Documents were false or forged.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
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.