Understanding Affirmative Defenses (self defense, defense of property, etc.) in Arizona

“Each party is required to definitively state any affirmative defense in a responsive pleading.” (See Ariz. R. Civ. P. 8(c); Harding v. Ariz. Bd. of Dental Examiners, No. 1 CA-CV 18-0597, at *5 (Ariz. Ct. App. Dec. 10, 2019).)

“Failure to plead an affirmative defense generally results in waiver, although the superior court has discretion to allow the party to amend its answer to raise it.” (See id.)

“Notwithstanding the preservation of an affirmative defense in an answer, a party may waive that defense by its subsequent conduct in the litigation." (See id.)

“Waiver by conduct occurs when a party takes substantial steps to litigate the merits of a claim that would not have been necessary had the defense promptly been raised.” (See id.)

“A litigant asserting waiver by conduct must demonstrate actions that are clearly inconsistent with the assertion of the defense.” (See id.)

Self Defense

“To be entitled to the privilege of self-defense, [o]ne may use only reasonable force . . . to prevent harm to his person.” (See Sonoran Desert Investigations v. Miller (2007) 213 Ariz. 274, 280.)

“Although the use of force in self-defense or defense of property may be privileged, the actor has a duty to act reasonably, and a claimant who is injured while breaking the law may have a cause of action if the response involves an unreasonable, excessive use of force.” (See Sonoran Desert Investigations v. Miller (2007) 213 Ariz. 274, 281.)

“Self-defense justifies the use of force only while the apparent danger continues. The right to use force in self-defense ends when the apparent danger ends.” (See Gortarez v. Smitty's Super Valu, Inc. (1984) 140 Ariz. 97, 105.)

“Actual danger is not necessary to justify the use of force in self-defense. It is enough if the defendant reasonably believed he was in physical danger.” (See id.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“We review de novo dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted.” (See Coleman v. City of Mesa (2012) 230 Ariz. 352, 355, ¶ 7; Wasielewski v. the Kroger Co., No. 1 CA-CV 15-0697, at *3 (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 9, 2017).)

“Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate only if as a matter of law plaintiffs would not be entitled to relief under any interpretation of the facts susceptible of proof.” (See id.)

“We assume the truth of all well-pleaded factual allegations and indulge all reasonable inferences from those facts, but statements of legal conclusions without supporting factual allegations are insufficient to form a basis for relief.” (See id.)

Notable Court Decisions Discussing Strict Liability

It is well settled that “[a] person is justified in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force.” (See Williams v. Baugh (2007) 214 Ariz. 471, 473-74.)

It is also well settled that “justification is not a denial of criminal conduct but an exemption from culpability. Like justification generally, the precise justification in A.R.S. subsection 13-411(C) is most plausibly read as an affirmative defense to otherwise criminal conduct.” (See Korzep v. Superior Court (1992) 172 Ariz. 534, 539.)

Current as of April 30, 2024 | Updated by Trellis Law Content Team

The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only. Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information and is subject to change without notice.