HB2843

THE CONTEXT: A.R.S. title 13, chapter 4 contains multiple sections of statute relating to justification defenses in criminal prosecutions. These defenses describe conduct that, if not justified, would constitute an offense but, if justified, does not constitute criminal or wrongful conduct. Justification defenses under chapter 4 are not affirmative defenses; therefore, if the defendant in a criminal prosecution presents evidence of justification under chapter 4, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act with justification ( A.R.S. 13-205 ). Justification is available as a defense in a prosecution for any offense in the criminal code, except that the defense is unavailable if a person recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person regardless of whether the person was justified in threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force against another ( A.R.S. 13-401 ). One form of justification involves actions taken by a person to stop or prevent a criminal trespass on certain premises. Specifically, a person or the person's agent who is in lawful possession or control of a premises is justified in threatening to use deadly physical force or in threatening or using physical force against another if a reasonable person would believe it immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by the other person in or upon the premises. However, such a person may only use deadly physical force in these circumstances in defense of himself or third persons as described in A.R.S. 13-405 and 13-406. For purposes of this form of justification, premises is defined as any real property and any structure, movable or immovable, permanent or temporary, adopted for both human residence and lodging whether occupied or not ( A.R.S. 13-407 ). Other applicable terms, such as physical force, deadly physical force, possess and possession are defined in A.R.S. 13-105. Additionally, the different forms of criminal trespass are prescribed in A.R.S. title 13, chapter 15.

WHAT THE BILL DID: The final vetoed version would change the definition of premises for purposes of the justification defense in A.R.S. 13-407 to mean any real property or (rather than and ) any structure, moveable or immovable, permanent or temporary, adopted for either (rather than both ) human residence or (rather than and ) lodging whether occupied or not.

WHY IT MATTERED: The practical reason for this bill was to make a concrete adjustment to the existing rule for defense of premises. It would change the definition of premises for purposes of the justification defense in A.R.S. 13-407 to mean any real property or (rather than and ) any structure, moveable or immovable, permanent or temporary, adopted for either (rather than both ) human residence or (rather than and ) lodging whether occupied or not, rather than leave the current rule unchanged.