-
Tempe
-
Lake Havasu City
-
Apache Junction
-
Parker
Endangerment Charges in Arizona?
Your Freedom Can't Wait.
The charge of endangerment is incredibly vague and gives police officers broad discretion to arrest people for nearly any reason. In Arizona, a person can be charged with endangerment if the officer believes they were recklessly endangering another person with substantial risk of imminent death or physical injury. The key to defending an endangerment case is whether there was actually a substantial risk of imminent death or physical injury. An endangerment charge can either be a class 1 misdemeanor or class 6 felony. In any event, if convicted, a person could face mandatory jail or prison, fines, and probation. If you are facing an endangerment charge in Phoenix, Tempe, or anywhere in Arizona, it is imperative that you are represented by an experienced criminal defense attorney who will fight to preserve your rights. Matthew Lopez Law, PLLC, is ready to help.
Nobody has to get hurt for you to be convicted of endangerment in Arizona. ARS 13-1201 criminalizes the risk itself: recklessly endangering another person with a substantial risk of imminent death or physical injury. The statute is two sentences long, and the second one contains a distinction worth years of a person’s life.
Endangerment involving a substantial risk of imminent death is a Class 6 felony. In all other cases it is a Class 1 misdemeanor. One word, death versus injury, decides whether a client ends up with a felony record or a misdemeanor. That makes endangerment cases unusually winnable, because the state routinely charges the felony version in situations where the actual risk never rose to a risk of death.
Matthew Lopez Law defends endangerment charges throughout Arizona. Contact our firm for a confidential consultation.
Arizona’s standard jury instructions, published by the State Bar of Arizona, break the offense into two parts, and both must be proven:
The second element is the one defense attorneys focus on, and it is frequently overlooked. It is not enough that the conduct was dangerous in the abstract or could have gone badly. The conduct must have actually created the risk. Arizona case law is clear that for the felony version, a person must have been placed in an actual substantial risk of imminent death, not a theoretical one.
This matters constantly in practice. Firing a weapon into an empty field, driving recklessly on a deserted road at 3 a.m., or waving an unloaded firearm may all be reckless conduct. Whether any identifiable person was actually placed at substantial risk of imminent death is a separate question, and often the answer is no.
Endangerment requires recklessness, defined in ARS 13-105 as being aware of and consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk, where the disregard is a gross deviation from the standard of care a reasonable person would observe.
Two consequences follow. A defendant who genuinely did not perceive the risk was, at most, criminally negligent, which is a lower mental state than this statute requires. And ordinary carelessness never satisfies the standard, because the deviation must be gross.
|
Risk Created |
Classification |
Exposure |
|
Substantial risk of imminent death |
Class 6 felony |
4 months to 2 years prison, presumptive 1 year, probation available |
|
Substantial risk of imminent physical injury |
Class 1 misdemeanor |
Up to 6 months jail, up to $2,500 plus 84% surcharge |
A felony conviction brings loss of firearm rights and loss of voting rights until restored. Prior felony convictions raise the range under ARS 13-703, and where a deadly weapon was involved the state may allege a dangerous offense under ARS 13-704, which removes probation and imposes a mandatory prison floor.
Arizona case law also establishes that when the substantial risk of imminent death is contested, a special verdict form should be used so the jury decides that question specifically. That procedural point is a defense tool, because it forces the jury to confront an element the state often glosses over.
Endangerment is one of the most frequently added charges in Arizona, precisely because it requires no injury.
Because the statute protects each person endangered, prosecutors frequently file one count per person present. A single reckless driving incident with three passengers can produce three separate endangerment counts, and each carries its own sentence that a judge may run consecutively.
Challenging stacked counts is a distinct defense task. The state must prove that each named person was actually placed at substantial risk, not merely that they were nearby. Passengers in different parts of a vehicle, people in adjacent rooms, or bystanders at varying distances are not automatically all endangered to the same degree, and sometimes not at all.
No actual risk of death. This is the highest-value defense. Reducing a felony endangerment to the misdemeanor version by showing the risk was of injury rather than death changes the entire outcome. Distance, the direction a weapon was pointed, whether a firearm was loaded, speed, road conditions, and the position of every person involved are all relevant.
No actual risk at all. The conduct must have created a real risk to a real person. Where nobody was in the zone of danger, the second element fails outright.
Not reckless. The state must prove conscious disregard of a known risk. A defendant who was unaware of the risk, or whose conduct was a lapse rather than a gross deviation, does not meet the standard.
Justification. Where the conduct occurred while defending against a threat, ARS 13-404 and ARS 13-405 apply. A warning shot fired during a genuine confrontation is a common example.
Challenging stacked counts. Requiring proof as to each individually named person often eliminates counts.
Causation and identity. In firearm cases, establishing who actually discharged the weapon, and in vehicle cases who was driving, is frequently contested.
Contesting the dangerous allegation. Where a weapon was involved, defeating the dangerous designation restores probation eligibility.
Endangerment is a charge built entirely on risk, which means it is defended by examining exactly what risk existed and to whom. The gap between a felony and a misdemeanor here is one word, and closing that gap is achievable in a large share of these cases through careful reconstruction of the scene.
We serve clients in Tempe, Mesa, Apache Junction, Lake Havasu, Parker, and statewide. Flat fees for misdemeanor matters. Payment plans available. Every interaction confidential.
Contact us for a free consultation.
Every minute counts when you’re facing criminal charges in Arizona. Whether you were just arrested or have court next week, our team is ready to start building your defense right now. We offer free consultations and can start protecting your rights today with flexible payment plans that work for your budget.
Real person answers,
not voicemail
No obligation, no pressure
Start your defense with
minimal money down
Google Reviews
Successfully Defended
For Arizona Residents
Fighting For You
"*" indicates required fields
This will close in 0 seconds