In Engstrom v. McCarthy (January 9, 2018), the Arizona Court of Appeals reversed a trial court’s finding of domestic violence based on insufficient findings. “It may well be that some of Father’s actions constituted domestic violence under the statute. The court, however, relied on many acts that do not statutorily constitute domestic violence, and did not explain why Father’s actions amounted to ‘significant’ domestic violence.” The COA remanded for findings as to whether Father’s actions were domestic violence as defined in ARS 13-3601A.
The definition of domestic violence is contained in ARS 13-3601A.
“Domestic violence” means any act that is a dangerous crime against children as defined in section 13-705 or an offense prescribed in section 13-1102, 13-1103, 13-1104, 13-1105, 13-1201, 13-1202, 13-1203, 13-1204, 13-1302, 13-1303, 13-1304, 13-1406, 13-1425, 13-1502, 13-1503, 13-1504, 13-1602 or 13-2810, section 13-2904, subsection A, paragraph 1, 2, 3 or 6, section 13-2910, subsection A, paragraph 8 or 9, section 13-2915, subsection A, paragraph 3 or section 13-2916, 13-2921, 13-2921.01, 13-2923, 13-3019, 13-3601.02 or 13-3623 . . . . .
As the laundry list of criminal violations in this statute requires that we look up all those other statutes to determine what “domestic violence” is, I created a cheat sheet list of those other statutes, as an easier way to determine the statutory definition of “domestic violence”.
ARS §13-3601 defines domestic violence as a violation of any of the following statutes:
13-705 sexual assault of a minor
13-1102 negligent. homicide
13-1104 2nd degree murder
13-1105 1st degree murder
13-1202 threatening or intimidating
13-1204 aggravated assault
13-1302 custodial interference
13-1303 unlawful imprisonment
13-1406 sexual assault
13-1425 unlawful distribution of images
13-1502 criminal trespass 3rd degree
13-1503 criminal trespass 2nd degree
13-1504 criminal trespass 1st degree
13-1602 criminal damage
13-2810 interfering with judicial proceedings
13-2904, subsections A, paragraph 1, 2, 3 or 6 are: disturbing in the peace by fighting, violent or disruptive behavior; unreasonable noise; abusive or offensive language, reckless display of firearm
13-2910, subsection A, paragraph 8 or 9, are: cruel neglect or abandonment of an animal with serious injury or cruel mistreatment of an animal
13-2915, subsection A, paragraph 3 is to prevent or interfere with use of a telephone in an emergency
13-2916 electronic communication to terrify intimidate threaten or harass
13-2921.01 aggravated harassment
13-3019 misconduct involving weapons in an airport
13-3601.02 aggravated domestic violence (defined as the 3rd DV offense with conviction within 84 months)
13-3623 child or vulnerable adult abuse
NOTE: A violation of any of these statutes becomes domestic violence based on the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim. ARS 13-3601A states that the following relationships may create domestic violence situations:
- The relationship between the victim and the defendant is one of marriage or former marriage or of persons residing or having resided in the same household
- The victim and the defendant have a child in common
- The victim or the defendant is pregnant by the other party.
- The victim is related to the defendant or the defendant’s spouse by blood or court order as a parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, brother or sister or by marriage as a parent-in-law, grandparent-in-law, stepparent, step-grandparent, stepchild, step-grandchild, brother-in-law or sister-in-law.
- The victim is a child who resides or has resided in the same household as the defendant and is related by blood to a former spouse of the defendant or to a person who resides or who has resided in the same household as the defendant.
- The relationship between the victim and the defendant is currently or was previously a romantic or sexual relationship. [The statute goes on to list factors to be used in determining if something was a “romantic or sexual relationship”.]
 An expert witness on domestic violence had testified for Mother at trial. It appears that the COA was concerned that the trial court may have relied on that expert’s definition of domestic violence as opposed to the statutory definition.