gross deviation standard in Arizona

2022See A.R.S. § 13-1203(A)(1), -1204(A)(3); In re Robert A., 199 Ariz. 485, 488, ¶ 14 (App. 2001) ("Mental states cannot be assumed."). ¶8 Reckless means "a person is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur" and the risk "must be of such nature and degree that disregard of such risk constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation." A.R.S. § 13-105(10)(c). "[A]bsent a person's outright admission regarding his state of mind, his mental state must necessarily be ascertained

2015To prove recklessness for the purposes of § 13–2904, the State was required to show Villalobos: (1) was “aware of a substantial and unjustified risk” that handling, displaying, or discharging a deadly weapon would disturb the peace and quiet of the victims, and (2) “that such a risk constitute[d] a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.” In re Robert A., 199 Ariz. 485, 488, ¶ 14 , 19 P.3d 626, 629 (App. 2001); A.R.S. § 13-105(10)(c). ¶21 There is substantial evidence supporting Villalobos’ convictions for disorderly conduct.

2022State v. West, 226 Ariz. 559, 562, ¶ 15 (2011).

2014See State v. West, 226 Ariz. 559, 562, ¶ 16 , 250 P.3d 1188, 1191 (2011) (“[T]he relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” (citation omitted)); see also State v. Scott, 113 Ariz. 423, 424-25 , 555 P.2d 1117 , 1118- 19 (1976) (“Reversible error based on insufficiency of the evidence occurs only where there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the conviction.”).

2005The statute also requires that “[t]he risk ... be of such nature and degree that disregard of such risk constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.” Id. ¶ 25 Miles cites In re William G., 192 Ariz. 208 , 963 P.2d 287 (App.1997), in support of his argument that his behavior constituted nothing more than civil negligence.

2005The statute also requires that “[t]he risk ... be of such nature and degree that disregard of such risk constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.” Id. ¶ 25 Miles cites In re William G., 192 Ariz. 208 , 963 P.2d 287 (App.1997), in support of his argument that his behavior constituted nothing more than civil negligence.

2023See State v. Miranda, 200 Ariz. 67, 69, ¶ 7 (2001). ¶25 The superior court declined to instruct on reckless manslaughter because it found “no evidence of any recklessness that was 7 STATE v. ESTEVEZ Decision of the Court presented to the jury.” Yet the court instructed the jury on the definition of “recklessly” and reckless second-degree murder.

2019See, e.g., State v. Miles, 211 Ariz. 475, 482, ¶ 27 (App. 2005) (evidence sufficient to support a finding of defendant’s recklessness when defendant failed to stop or slow down at a clearly visible stop sign and entered the intersection “very fast” with tires screeching).

2015See State v. Govan, 154 Ariz. 611, 615 (App. 1987) (finding that a rational fact-finder could determine defendant acted recklessly when he shot in the victim’s direction without a reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary). ¶10 Sufficient evidence supported the jury’s determination that Jude’s conduct was a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.

2014See State v. West, 226 Ariz. 559, 562, ¶ 16 , 250 P.3d 1188, 1191 (2011) (“[T]he relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” (citation omitted)); see also State v. Scott, 113 Ariz. 423, 424-25 , 555 P.2d 1117 , 1118- 19 (1976) (“Reversible error based on insufficiency of the evidence occurs only where there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the conviction.”).

2014See State v. West, 226 Ariz. 559, 562, ¶ 16 , 250 P.3d 1188, 1191 (2011) (“[T]he relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” (citation omitted)); see also State v. Scott, 113 Ariz. 423, 424-25 , 555 P.2d 1117 , 1118- 19 (1976) (“Reversible error based on insufficiency of the evidence occurs only where there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the conviction.”).

2014Substantial evidence is “such proof that ‘reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’” State v. Mathers, 165 Ariz. 64, 67 , 796 P.2d 866, 869 (1990) (citation omitted).

2014Substantial evidence is “such proof that ‘reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’” State v. Mathers, 165 Ariz. 64, 67 , 796 P.2d 866, 869 (1990) (citation omitted).

2001See Huffman, 137 Ariz. at 303 , 670 P.2d at 408 .

2001See Huffman, 137 Ariz. at 303 , 670 P.2d at 408 .