Domestic Violence is a serious matter. Having said that conduct which is not necessarily violent can be classified as “Domestic Violence”.
When police respond to a 911 Call regarding Domestic Violence they can charge a person for one or more domestic violence crimes. A very common charge is Disorderly Conduct alleging “Seriously Disruptive Behavior” under 13 A.R.S. § 2904(A)(1).
13 A.R.S. § 2904(A)(1) says, “A. A person commits disorderly conduct if, with intent to disturb the peace or quiet of a neighborhood, family or person, or with knowledge of doing so, such person: 1. Engages in fighting, violent or seriously disruptive behavior.”
“Seriously Disruptive Behavior” is a somewhat vague term and can apply to many actions. Perhaps mindful of that, the Arizona Supreme Court in In Re Julio L. limited “Seriously Disruptive Behavior” to be “of the same general nature as fighting or violence or conduct liable to provoke that response in others and thus to threaten the continuation of some event, function, or activity.” In short, the behavior must be either violent or likely to provoke a violent response. If there is no element of violence, then it is not a violation of 13 A.R.S. § 2904(A)(1).
This issue recently came up in the Court of Appeals case of Settlemeyer v. State, No. 2 CA-SA 2025-0081 Filed 1/15/26. In Settlemeyer, the defendant and her husband were divorcing but still living together. The husband, a law enforcement officer, was on call and away from their home when he was called into work. He returned home to retrieve his equipment.
The defendant had barred their home’s front door and deactivated the garage door, preventing the husband from entering. The defendant had left the husband’s vest and uniform in his patrol vehicle but had not left a necessary radio battery and long-sleeved shirt, and he was delayed for ten to fifteen minutes while the defendant retrieved those items. Once the husband obtained his equipment, he called 9-1-1 and waited for police to arrive before reporting for duty.
The defendant was charged in the Marana Town Court with a violation of 13 A.R.S. § 2904(A)(1). Although the case was not specifically described as “Domestic Violence,” the Marana Town Court records say it was Domestic Violence. The case was tried in a bench trial, meaning to a judge, not a jury. The judge found the defendant guilty and said it was because the defendant had intentionally prevented the husband from entering the home and “thereby disrupted his ability to get to work on that day.” The court made no mention of violence. The defendant was then sentenced to probation and counseling, as required by 13 A.R.S. § 3601.01.
The defendant exercised her right to appeal to the Superior Court, and that court affirmed her conviction and sentence.
Under normal circumstances that would be the end of a municipal court case because a defendant has no right to a further appeal. A defendant, however, can file in the Court of Appeals what is known as a petition for Special Action. In such petition the petitioner asks the Court of Appeals to take the case because of some unusual circumstances. Whether the Court of Appeals accepts the petition and takes jurisdiction or not is entirely up to the court, and it often does not.
In Settlemeyer the defendant’s petition alleged the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to be a violation of 13 A.R.S. § 2904(A)(1). Since there was no evidence the defendant engaged in violent behavior nor behavior likely to provoke a violent response, she had a good argument. The Court of Appeals accepted the defendant’s petition.
The Court of Appeals went on to reverse the conviction. In doing so the court said:
”Although the husband was unable to readily enter his garage or home, the defendant’s conduct is not analogous to a violent act and would not have reasonably warranted a violent response on his part. Nor was the disruption sufficient to stop his activity—the husband was delayed only briefly and was quickly provided with the equipment he needed. And the husband’s decision to wait for police to arrive after calling 9-1-1 rather than report for duty suggests that he was not seriously disrupted by the defendant’s conduct. Any inconvenience the defendant caused was simply not substantial enough to constitute criminal conduct.”
Since there was no violence as a matter of law, there was no basis to convict the defendant.
What follows is strictly my personal opinion.
The Settlemeyer decision is a memorandum decision. That means it cannot be cited as legal authority. The case, however, is an important case. Convictions are rarely reversed when the issue is sufficiency of the evidence. Additionally, the Court of Appeals rarely accepts special action petitions from a municipal court conviction when the issue is the sufficiency of the evidence.
I further believe the court only accepted the petition because the evidence clearly did not show the defendant commit a violation of 13 A.R.S. § 2904(A)(1). The Supreme Court’s opinion in In Re Julio L. is biding law and very clear in what that law is. There cannot be a violation of 13 A.R.S. § 2904(A)(1), “Seriously Disruptive Behavior” unless the defendant either engages in violence or in conduct likely to provoke a violent response.
The evidence in Settlemeyer did not come close to meeting the Supreme Court’s clear standard of Seriously Disruptive Behavior. Domestic Violence is a very serious matter and to say a minor inconvenience without more, is a crime trivializes the seriousness of domestic violence.
Domestic violence can have immediate and lifelong consequences. Although I do not know if it happened in this case, normally at the first court appearance the judge orders the defendant not to go back to the scene of the incident, which could mean the defendant’s home. Other actions can include suspension of Fingerprint Clearance cards, which occupations such as Nurses and Teachers are required to keep valid as a condition of employment.
Because of the seriousness of domestic violence charges prosecutors and courts should follow law as clearly stated by our Supreme Court in In Re Julio L.
Gordon Thompson
For more information about Arizona DUI and criminal law issues please contact Gordon Thompson who has used his experience to write a blog on topics of interest. You can also chat with Gordon about your specific questions.
Website: https://www.GordonThompsonAttorney.net
Blog: https://www.GordonThompsonAttorney.net/blog/
