given instruction in Arizona

2021“We review a court’s decision to give a jury instruction for abuse of discretion,” but review de novo “whether the given instruction correctly states the law.” State v. Solis, 236 Ariz. 285, 286, ¶ 6 (App. 2014).

2021“We review a court’s decision to give a jury instruction for abuse of discretion,” but review de novo “whether the given instruction correctly states the law.” State v. Solis, 236 Ariz. 285, 286, ¶ 6 (App. 2014).

2016Long v. Corvo, 131 Ariz. 216, 217 (App. 1981).

2000See id.

2021State v. Abdi, 226 Ariz. 361, 363, ¶ 5 (App. 2011).

2013State v. Abdi, 226 Ariz. 361, ¶ 5 , 248 P.3d 209, 211 (App.2011).

2021We also consider the “jury instructions as a whole to determine whether the jury was properly guided in its deliberations.” Powers v. Taser Int’l, Inc., 217 Ariz. 398, 400, ¶ 12 (App. 2007).

2021We consider the “jury instructions as a whole to determine whether the jury was properly guided in its deliberations.” Powers v. Taser Int’l, Inc., 217 Ariz. 398, 400, ¶ 12 (App. 2007).

2024P. 51(d)(1). “[A]bsent fundamental error, the superior court may not grant a new trial based on an erroneous instruction to which no objection was raised at trial.” Mill Alley Partners v. Wallace, 236 Ariz. 420, 423, ¶ 8 (App. 2014). ¶51 PARC argues that Premier failed to properly object to the given instruction on contract damages or raise the issue in its motion for a new trial and has waived the issue on appeal.

2021See State v. James, 231 Ariz. 490, 494, ¶ 15 (App. 2013) (explaining trial evidence is considered when assessing jury instructions). ¶26 In sum, had the jurors accepted York’s account, the given instruction would not have compelled them to reject his crime-prevention defense.

2019Therefore, the court did not err by providing the given instruction. ¶18 Although a superior court, in consultation with counsel, may provide a clarifying instruction in response to a jury’s question, the “decision to further instruct a jury on a matter . . . is within the [superior] court’s discretion.” State v. Ramirez, 178 Ariz. 116, 126 (1994).

2019“Thus, [w]hen a jury asks a judge about a matter on which it has received adequate instruction, the judge may in his or her discretion refuse to answer or may refer the jury to the earlier instruction.” Id. (internal quotations omitted).

2017See State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 588 , 858 P.2d 1152, 1191 (1993) (“Error, be it constitutional or otherwise, is 4 Defendant does not argue that the given instruction misstates the law. 4 STATE v. DANIELS Decision of the Court harmless if we can say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict.”) (citation omitted); State v. Shearer, 164 Ariz. 329, 339-40 , 793 P.2d 86, 96-97 (App. 1989) (holding that the introduction of inadmissible evidence was harmless error when it was cumulative to and consistent with other trial testimony).

2017See State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 588 , 858 P.2d 1152, 1191 (1993) (“Error, be it constitutional or otherwise, is 4 Defendant does not argue that the given instruction misstates the law. 4 STATE v. DANIELS Decision of the Court harmless if we can say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict.”) (citation omitted); State v. Shearer, 164 Ariz. 329, 339-40 , 793 P.2d 86, 96-97 (App. 1989) (holding that the introduction of inadmissible evidence was harmless error when it was cumulative to and consistent with other trial testimony).

2017See State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 588 , 858 P.2d 1152, 1191 (1993) (“Error, be it constitutional or otherwise, is 4 Defendant does not argue that the given instruction misstates the law. 4 STATE v. DANIELS Decision of the Court harmless if we can say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict.”) (citation omitted); State v. Shearer, 164 Ariz. 329, 339-40 , 793 P.2d 86, 96-97 (App. 1989) (holding that the introduction of inadmissible evidence was harmless error when it was cumulative to and consistent with other trial testimony).

2017See State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 588 , 858 P.2d 1152, 1191 (1993) (“Error, be it constitutional or otherwise, is 4 Defendant does not argue that the given instruction misstates the law. 4 STATE v. DANIELS Decision of the Court harmless if we can say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict.”) (citation omitted); State v. Shearer, 164 Ariz. 329, 339-40 , 793 P.2d 86, 96-97 (App. 1989) (holding that the introduction of inadmissible evidence was harmless error when it was cumulative to and consistent with other trial testimony).

2014See State v. Orendain, 188 Ariz. 54, 56 , 932 P.2d 1325, 1327 (1997).

2014See State v. Orendain, 188 Ariz. 54, 56 , 932 P.2d 1325, 1327 (1997).

2013Chronis v. Steinle, 220 Ariz. 559, ¶ 6 , 208 P.3d 210, 211 (2009).

2013Chronis v. Steinle, 220 Ariz. 559, ¶ 6 , 208 P.3d 210, 211 (2009).

2003Gemstar Ltd v. Ernst & Young, 185 Ariz. 493, 504 , 917 P.2d 222, 233 (1996). *468 1.

2003Gemstar Ltd v. Ernst & Young, 185 Ariz. 493, 504 , 917 P.2d 222, 233 (1996). *468 1.

2003We disagree. “[W]hen a jury is properly instructed on the applicable law, the trial court is not required to provide additional instructions that do nothing more than reiterate or enlarge the instructions in defendant’s language.” State v. Salazar, 173 Ariz. 399, 409 , 844 P.2d 566, 576 (1992); see also State v. Mott, 187 Ariz. 536, 546 , 931 P.2d 1046, 1056 (1997). ¶77 The trial court’s mere presence instruction correctly stated the law.

2003We disagree. “[W]hen a jury is properly instructed on the applicable law, the trial court is not required to provide additional instructions that do nothing more than reiterate or enlarge the instructions in defendant’s language.” State v. Salazar, 173 Ariz. 399, 409 , 844 P.2d 566, 576 (1992); see also State v. Mott, 187 Ariz. 536, 546 , 931 P.2d 1046, 1056 (1997). ¶77 The trial court’s mere presence instruction correctly stated the law.

2003We disagree. “[W]hen a jury is properly instructed on the applicable law, the trial court is not required to provide additional instructions that do nothing more than reiterate or enlarge the instructions in defendant’s language.” State v. Salazar, 173 Ariz. 399, 409 , 844 P.2d 566, 576 (1992); see also State v. Mott, 187 Ariz. 536, 546 , 931 P.2d 1046, 1056 (1997). ¶77 The trial court’s mere presence instruction correctly stated the law.

2003We disagree. “[W]hen a jury is properly instructed on the applicable law, the trial court is not required to provide additional instructions that do nothing more than reiterate or enlarge the instructions in defendant’s language.” State v. Salazar, 173 Ariz. 399, 409 , 844 P.2d 566, 576 (1992); see also State v. Mott, 187 Ariz. 536, 546 , 931 P.2d 1046, 1056 (1997). ¶77 The trial court’s mere presence instruction correctly stated the law.

2003See Reyes v. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc., 498 F.2d 1264, 1281 (5th Cir.1974) (reasoning that without heeding presumption plaintiff would be left with providing speculative and self-serving testimony); Coffman v. Keene Corp., 133 N.J. 581 , 628 A.2d 710, 719 (1993) (recognizing heeding presumption eases difficulty of showing absence of warning was substantial factor in causing injury). ¶ 38 The trial court instructed the jury on the heeding presumption as follows: Where a warning is given, a seller may reasonably assume that it will be read and heeded.

2003See Reyes v. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc., 498 F.2d 1264, 1281 (5th Cir.1974) (reasoning that without heeding presumption plaintiff would be left with providing speculative and self-serving testimony); Coffman v. Keene Corp., 133 N.J. 581 , 628 A.2d 710, 719 (1993) (recognizing heeding presumption eases difficulty of showing absence of warning was substantial factor in causing injury). ¶ 38 The trial court instructed the jury on the heeding presumption as follows: Where a warning is given, a seller may reasonably assume that it will be read and heeded.

2003See Reyes v. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc., 498 F.2d 1264, 1281 (5th Cir.1974) (reasoning that without heeding presumption plaintiff would be left with providing speculative and self-serving testimony); Coffman v. Keene Corp., 133 N.J. 581 , 628 A.2d 710, 719 (1993) (recognizing heeding presumption eases difficulty of showing absence of warning was substantial factor in causing injury). ¶ 38 The trial court instructed the jury on the heeding presumption as follows: Where a warning is given, a seller may reasonably assume that it will be read and heeded.

2000None voted for felony murder alone. ś 128 In State v. Carriger, 143 Ariz. 142, 161 , 692 P.2d 991, 1010 (1984), we stated that "[t]he court may find the aggravating circumstance of pecuniary gain when the basis of the first degree murder conviction is felony murder and the felony is robbery." In the present case, the jury convicted the defendant of armed robbery and kidnapping, thus satisfying the first prong of the given instruction.

2000None voted for felony murder alone. ś 128 In State v. Carriger, 143 Ariz. 142, 161 , 692 P.2d 991, 1010 (1984), we stated that "[t]he court may find the aggravating circumstance of pecuniary gain when the basis of the first degree murder conviction is felony murder and the felony is robbery." In the present case, the jury convicted the defendant of armed robbery and kidnapping, thus satisfying the first prong of the given instruction.

1995State v. White, 160 Ariz. 24, 31 , 770 P.2d 328, 335 (1989).

1995State v. White, 160 Ariz. 24, 31 , 770 P.2d 328, 335 (1989).

1990Henderson v. Kibbe, 431 U.S. 145, 154 , 97 S.Ct. 1730, 1736 , 52 L.Ed.2d 203, 212 (1977).

1990Henderson v. Kibbe, 431 U.S. 145, 154 , 97 S.Ct. 1730, 1736 , 52 L.Ed.2d 203, 212 (1977).

1989See International Controls Corp. v. Vesco, 535 F.2d 742, 748 (2d Cir.1976) (district court may utilize its Rule 54(b) powers with respect to a given claim only if all damages stemming from that claim have been fixed); Marino v. Nevitt, 311 F.2d 406 (3d Cir.1963) (appeal dismissed from a partial summary judgment denying two elements of damage on a single claim); Harris v. Goldblatt Bros., Inc., 659 F.2d 784 (7th Cir.1981) (plaintiff’s attempted appeal from partial summary judgment denying his claim for punitive damages and certain other types of relief dismissed as premature); Public Service Co

1989See International Controls Corp. v. Vesco, 535 F.2d 742, 748 (2d Cir.1976) (district court may utilize its Rule 54(b) powers with respect to a given claim only if all damages stemming from that claim have been fixed); Marino v. Nevitt, 311 F.2d 406 (3d Cir.1963) (appeal dismissed from a partial summary judgment denying two elements of damage on a single claim); Harris v. Goldblatt Bros., Inc., 659 F.2d 784 (7th Cir.1981) (plaintiff’s attempted appeal from partial summary judgment denying his claim for punitive damages and certain other types of relief dismissed as premature); Public Service Co

1988State v. Avila, 141 Ariz. 325, 329 , 686 P.2d 1295, 1299 (App.1984), modified, 147 Ariz. 330 , 710 P.2d 440 (1985) (failure to instruct on accomplice liability harmless error).

1988State v. Avila, 141 Ariz. 325, 329 , 686 P.2d 1295, 1299 (App.1984), modified, 147 Ariz. 330 , 710 P.2d 440 (1985) (failure to instruct on accomplice liability harmless error).