justification defense in Arizona

2023See State v. Vassell, 238 Ariz. 281 , 284 ¶ 9 (App. 2015) (noting that a justification instruction is not required unless the evidence “reasonably and clearly” supports it); see also State v. Hussain, 189 Ariz. 336, 337 (App. 1997) (“A trial court . . . does not err in refusing to give a jury instruction that . . . does not fit the facts of the particular case.”).

2021Id. at 337 ; see also State v. Vassell, 238 Ariz. 281, 284, ¶ 9 (App. 2015) (a justification instruction is not required unless the evidence “reasonably and clearly” supports it).

2024See King, 225 Ariz. at 91, ¶ 18 (When the jury is given a justification instruction, the State can “attempt to persuade the factfinder” that the defendant’s actions were unjustified.). ¶12 A defendant need not show actual or threatened assault to meet the slightest evidence standard.

2024A.R.S. § 13-205(A); King, 225 Ariz. at 91, ¶ 18 (Once a 5 STATE v. LAMPE Decision of the Court justification instruction has been given, the State’s burden is to persuade the jury that the defendant’s actions were not justified.); Carson, 243 Ariz. at 468, ¶ 20 (After a showing of a hostile demonstration, the burden shifts to the State to disprove self-defense.).

2018In State v. Almeida , we stated that a justification instruction for crime prevention is not warranted once a crime has been "fully completed, leaving nothing to prevent." 238 Ariz. 77 , ¶ 14, 356 P.3d at 836 .

2018In State v. Almeida , we stated that a justification instruction for crime prevention is not warranted once a crime has been "fully completed, leaving nothing to prevent." 238 Ariz. 77 , ¶ 14, 356 P.3d at 836 .

2018Instead, he stated only that his testimony at trial could "provide additional details about the origin, specificity, and imminence of the threats on his life." ¶ 12 While we acknowledge that a defendant's testimony is sufficient to raise the issue of self-defense, State v. Plew , 150 Ariz. 75 , 77, 722 P.2d 243 , 245 (1986), disapproved of on other grounds by State v. King , 225 Ariz. 87 , ¶¶ 9-12, 235 P.3d 240 , 242-43 (2010), and that the "slightest evidence" is all that is needed to support a justification defense, see State v. Carson , 243 Ariz. 463 , ¶ 18, 410 P.3d 1230 , 1234 (2018), a d

2018Instead, he stated only that his testimony at trial could "provide additional details about the origin, specificity, and imminence of the threats on his life." ¶ 12 While we acknowledge that a defendant's testimony is sufficient to raise the issue of self-defense, State v. Plew , 150 Ariz. 75 , 77, 722 P.2d 243 , 245 (1986), disapproved of on other grounds by State v. King , 225 Ariz. 87 , ¶¶ 9-12, 235 P.3d 240 , 242-43 (2010), and that the "slightest evidence" is all that is needed to support a justification defense, see State v. Carson , 243 Ariz. 463 , ¶ 18, 410 P.3d 1230 , 1234 (2018), a d

2025Thus, “an affirmative defense is a matter of avoidance of culpability even if the State proves the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Farley, 199 Ariz. 542 , 544 ¶ 11 (App. 2001). ¶15 In other words, by requesting a justification defense instruction, the defendant argues that even if he committed the alleged act, he is not criminally liable because he was justified in committing the act.

2015At that time, “Arizona common law governed the allocation of the burden of proving” a justification defense, and “[a] criminal defendant who presented ‘any evidence’ [to support such a defense] triggered the State’s obligation to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s conduct was not justified.” State v. Farley, 199 Ariz. 542, ¶ 7 , 19 P.3d 1258, 1259-60 (App.2001). 4 In State v. Byrd, in the context of a conviction for molestation of a child, the defendant argued the trial court’s instruction, which mirrored the language of § 13-1407(E), constituted unconstitutional burden shift

2024A justification instruction “need not be given,” however, “unless it is reasonably and clearly supported by the evidence.” State v. Vassell, 238 Ariz. 281, 284, ¶ 9 (App. 2015) (cleaned up).

2023See State v. Vassell, 238 Ariz. 281 , 284 ¶ 9 (App. 2015) (noting that a justification instruction is not required unless the evidence “reasonably and clearly” supports it); see also State v. Hussain, 189 Ariz. 336, 337 (App. 1997) (“A trial court . . . does not err in refusing to give a jury instruction that . . . does not fit the facts of the particular case.”).

2009It is also fundamental error for the trial judge to fail to instruct on vital matters "even if not requested by the defense." State v. Johnson, 205 Ariz. 413, 417, ¶ 11 , 72 P.3d 343, 347 (App.2003) (quoting State v. Avila, 147 Ariz. 330, 337 , 710 P.2d 440, 447 (1985)). ¶ 13 A justification instruction is warranted if it is supported by the "slightest evidence." State v. Hussain, 189 Ariz. 336, 337 , 942 P.2d 1168, 1169 (App.1997) (citing State v. Dumaine, 162 Ariz. 392, 404 , 783 P.2d 1184, 1196 (1989)).

2009It is also fundamental error for the trial judge to fail to instruct on vital matters "even if not requested by the defense." State v. Johnson, 205 Ariz. 413, 417, ¶ 11 , 72 P.3d 343, 347 (App.2003) (quoting State v. Avila, 147 Ariz. 330, 337 , 710 P.2d 440, 447 (1985)). ¶ 13 A justification instruction is warranted if it is supported by the "slightest evidence." State v. Hussain, 189 Ariz. 336, 337 , 942 P.2d 1168, 1169 (App.1997) (citing State v. Dumaine, 162 Ariz. 392, 404 , 783 P.2d 1184, 1196 (1989)).

2015State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz. 290, 309 , 896 P.2d 830, 849 (1995). “ ‘[T]he slightest evidence’ ” of justification requires that a defendant be granted a justification instruction, Ruggiero, 211 Ariz. 262, ¶ 10 , 120 P.3d at 692 , quoting State v. Hussain, 189 A-iz. 336, 337, 942 P.2d 1168, 1169 (App.1997); however, the instruction need not be given “ ‘unless it is reasonably and clearly supported by the evidence.’ ” Id. ¶ 10, quoting State v. Walters, 155 Ariz. 548, 553 , 748 P.2d 777, 782 (App.1987); see also State v. Strayhand, 184 Ariz. 571, 587-88, 911 P.2d 577, 593-94 (App.1995) (instructio

2015State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz. 290, 309 , 896 P.2d 830, 849 (1995). “ ‘[T]he slightest evidence’ ” of justification requires that a defendant be granted a justification instruction, Ruggiero, 211 Ariz. 262, ¶ 10 , 120 P.3d at 692 , quoting State v. Hussain, 189 A-iz. 336, 337, 942 P.2d 1168, 1169 (App.1997); however, the instruction need not be given “ ‘unless it is reasonably and clearly supported by the evidence.’ ” Id. ¶ 10, quoting State v. Walters, 155 Ariz. 548, 553 , 748 P.2d 777, 782 (App.1987); see also State v. Strayhand, 184 Ariz. 571, 587-88, 911 P.2d 577, 593-94 (App.1995) (instructio

2025Thus, the defendant must explain how his conduct was justified under the specific claimed justification defense. “‘For all we know, defendant might have objected had the trial court done what the appeals court now says it was required to do’ (sua sponte provide a justification instruction).” Brown, 556 P.3d at 782 ¶ 28 (quoting State v. Gendron, 168 Ariz. 153, 154 (1991)). ¶16 Without a specific request from counsel, the court need not “determine which of these disparate justification defenses ha[s] to be included in final jury instructions.” Id. at 782 ¶ 27.

2025Thus, the defendant must explain how his conduct was justified under the specific claimed justification defense. “‘For all we know, defendant might have objected had the trial court done what the appeals court now says it was required to do’ (sua sponte provide a justification instruction).” Brown, 556 P.3d at 782 ¶ 28 (quoting State v. Gendron, 168 Ariz. 153, 154 (1991)). ¶16 Without a specific request from counsel, the court need not “determine which of these disparate justification defenses ha[s] to be included in final jury instructions.” Id. at 782 ¶ 27.

1991We recently stated “that the justification defense in § 13-411 applies only when a home, its contents, or its residents are being protected by the use of force against another.” State v. Korzep, 165 Ariz. 490, 492 , 799 P.2d 831, 833 (1990) (citing State v. Thomason, 162 Ariz. 363, 366 , 783 P.2d 809, 812 (Ct.App.1989)).

1991We recently stated “that the justification defense in § 13-411 applies only when a home, its contents, or its residents are being protected by the use of force against another.” State v. Korzep, 165 Ariz. 490, 492 , 799 P.2d 831, 833 (1990) (citing State v. Thomason, 162 Ariz. 363, 366 , 783 P.2d 809, 812 (Ct.App.1989)).

2025See Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 , 206–07 (1977) (An affirmative defense “does not serve to negative any facts of the crime which the State is to prove in order to convict . . . .”).

2016It ‘does not serve to negative any facts of the crime which the State is to prove in order to convict . . . .’” State v. Farley, 199 Ariz. 542 , 544 ¶ 11, 19 P.3d 1258, 1260 (App. 2001) (quoting Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197, 207 (1977)). ¶23 These categories of defenses are mutually exclusive.

2024State v. Escalante, 245 Ariz. 135 , 140, ¶ 12 (2018). ¶12 “[A] defendant is entitled to a justification instruction if it is supported by the slightest evidence.” State v. Ruggiero, 211 Ariz. 262, 264, ¶ 10 (App. 2005) (cleaned up).

2015State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz. 290, 309 , 896 P.2d 830, 849 (1995). “ ‘[T]he slightest evidence’ ” of justification requires that a defendant be granted a justification instruction, Ruggiero, 211 Ariz. 262, ¶ 10 , 120 P.3d at 692 , quoting State v. Hussain, 189 A-iz. 336, 337, 942 P.2d 1168, 1169 (App.1997); however, the instruction need not be given “ ‘unless it is reasonably and clearly supported by the evidence.’ ” Id. ¶ 10, quoting State v. Walters, 155 Ariz. 548, 553 , 748 P.2d 777, 782 (App.1987); see also State v. Strayhand, 184 Ariz. 571, 587-88, 911 P.2d 577, 593-94 (App.1995) (instructio

2017Even assuming harmless error review applies where the court erroneously denied a justification instruction despite the slightest evidence of justification, but see State v. Taylor, 169 Ariz. 121, 123-24 , 817 P.2d 488, 490-91 (1991), the record does not support the state’s contention.

2017Even assuming harmless error review applies where the court erroneously denied a justification instruction despite the slightest evidence of justification, but see State v. Taylor, 169 Ariz. 121, 123-24 , 817 P.2d 488, 490-91 (1991), the record does not support the state’s contention.

2015State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz. 290, 309 , 896 P.2d 830, 849 (1995). “ ‘[T]he slightest evidence’ ” of justification requires that a defendant be granted a justification instruction, Ruggiero, 211 Ariz. 262, ¶ 10 , 120 P.3d at 692 , quoting State v. Hussain, 189 A-iz. 336, 337, 942 P.2d 1168, 1169 (App.1997); however, the instruction need not be given “ ‘unless it is reasonably and clearly supported by the evidence.’ ” Id. ¶ 10, quoting State v. Walters, 155 Ariz. 548, 553 , 748 P.2d 777, 782 (App.1987); see also State v. Strayhand, 184 Ariz. 571, 587-88, 911 P.2d 577, 593-94 (App.1995) (instructio

2015State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz. 290, 309 , 896 P.2d 830, 849 (1995). “ ‘[T]he slightest evidence’ ” of justification requires that a defendant be granted a justification instruction, Ruggiero, 211 Ariz. 262, ¶ 10 , 120 P.3d at 692 , quoting State v. Hussain, 189 A-iz. 336, 337, 942 P.2d 1168, 1169 (App.1997); however, the instruction need not be given “ ‘unless it is reasonably and clearly supported by the evidence.’ ” Id. ¶ 10, quoting State v. Walters, 155 Ariz. 548, 553 , 748 P.2d 777, 782 (App.1987); see also State v. Strayhand, 184 Ariz. 571, 587-88, 911 P.2d 577, 593-94 (App.1995) (instructio

2015We disagree. ¶ 16 Addressing criminal culpability, § 13-403(1) provides “[a] parent ... entrusted with the care and supervision of a minor ... may use reasonable and appropriate physical force upon the minor ... to the extent reasonably necessary and appropriate to maintain discipline.” Section 13-413 further provides that “[n]o person ... shall be subject to civil liability for engaging in conduct otherwise justified” pursuant to a justification defense. ¶ 17 Relying on Arizona State Department of Public Welfare v. Barlow, 80 Ariz. 249, 252 , 296 P.2d 298, 300 (1956), DCS maintains protection

2015We disagree. ¶ 16 Addressing criminal culpability, § 13-403(1) provides “[a] parent ... entrusted with the care and supervision of a minor ... may use reasonable and appropriate physical force upon the minor ... to the extent reasonably necessary and appropriate to maintain discipline.” Section 13-413 further provides that “[n]o person ... shall be subject to civil liability for engaging in conduct otherwise justified” pursuant to a justification defense. ¶ 17 Relying on Arizona State Department of Public Welfare v. Barlow, 80 Ariz. 249, 252 , 296 P.2d 298, 300 (1956), DCS maintains protection

2005In her reply brief, Ruggiero cites State v. Wright, 163 Ariz. 184 , 786 P.2d 1035 (App.1989), and State v. Plew, 150 Ariz. 75 , 722 P.2d 243 (1986), for the proposition that she could deny having killed D. and still have been entitled to a justification instruction.

2005In her reply brief, Ruggiero cites State v. Wright, 163 Ariz. 184 , 786 P.2d 1035 (App.1989), and State v. Plew, 150 Ariz. 75 , 722 P.2d 243 (1986), for the proposition that she could deny having killed D. and still have been entitled to a justification instruction.

2022See Herrell, 189 Ariz. at 630 (“[T]he prosecutor failed to give the jury the apparently uncontradicted facts that might make [a justification defense] and the statutes it refers to relevant and important.”); Maretick, 204 Ariz. at 196 ¶ 5, 197 ¶ 10 (observing that “[i]t is not the prosecutor’s role to deflect the grand jury from its inquiry” where grand juror’s questions were cut off).

2014See Maretick, 204 Ariz. at 197, ¶ 10 , 62 P.3d at 123 . ¶8 Washburn also argues the State improperly failed to instruct the grand jury on the justification defense for reasonable discipline.

1997But in State v. Thomason, 162 Ariz. 363, 366 , 783 P.2d 809, 812 (App.1989), this court, relying on the legislative intent behind section 13-411, held that the justification defense embodied in the statute “is available only when a home, its contents, or the residents therein are being protected by the use of physical force or deadly physical force against another.” Thus, defendant would be entitled to the requested instruction only if his motel room was a “home” within the meaning of A.R.S. section 13-411.

1997But in State v. Thomason, 162 Ariz. 363, 366 , 783 P.2d 809, 812 (App.1989), this court, relying on the legislative intent behind section 13-411, held that the justification defense embodied in the statute “is available only when a home, its contents, or the residents therein are being protected by the use of physical force or deadly physical force against another.” Thus, defendant would be entitled to the requested instruction only if his motel room was a “home” within the meaning of A.R.S. section 13-411.

2025See, e.g., State v. Blankenship, 99 Ariz. 60, 68 (1965) (rejecting defendants’ claim that “the trial court committed fundamental error in failing to instruct the jury on its own motion . . . as to [the defendants’] right to use force to protect their property”; “[T]his court has repeatedly held that where a defendant desires special instructions, and has neglected to request same, it constitutes a waiver of any right to such admonition.” (citations omitted)); State v. Lee, 80 Ariz. 213, 215-16 (1956) (rejecting, as “contrary” to “well settled” law, defendant's argument that trial court erred b

2024See, e.g., State v. Blankenship, 99 Ariz. 60, 68 (1965) (rejecting defendants’ claim that “the trial court committed fundamental error in failing to instruct the jury on its own motion . . . as to [the defendants’] right to use force to protect their property”; “[T]his court has repeatedly held that where a defendant desires special instructions, and has neglected to request same, it constitutes a waiver of any right to such admonition.”); State v. Lee, 80 Ariz. 213, 215-16 (1956) (rejecting, as “contrary” to “well settled” law, defendant’s argument that trial court erred by failing “on its ow

2025See, e.g., State v. Blankenship, 99 Ariz. 60, 68 (1965) (rejecting defendants’ claim that “the trial court committed fundamental error in failing to instruct the jury on its own motion . . . as to [the defendants’] right to use force to protect their property”; “[T]his court has repeatedly held that where a defendant desires special instructions, and has neglected to request same, it constitutes a waiver of any right to such admonition.” (citations omitted)); State v. Lee, 80 Ariz. 213, 215-16 (1956) (rejecting, as “contrary” to “well settled” law, defendant's argument that trial court erred b

2024See, e.g., State v. Blankenship, 99 Ariz. 60, 68 (1965) (rejecting defendants’ claim that “the trial court committed fundamental error in failing to instruct the jury on its own motion . . . as to [the defendants’] right to use force to protect their property”; “[T]his court has repeatedly held that where a defendant desires special instructions, and has neglected to request same, it constitutes a waiver of any right to such admonition.”); State v. Lee, 80 Ariz. 213, 215-16 (1956) (rejecting, as “contrary” to “well settled” law, defendant’s argument that trial court erred by failing “on its ow

2025See, e.g., State v. Blankenship, 99 Ariz. 60, 68 (1965) (rejecting defendants’ claim that “the trial court committed fundamental error in failing to instruct the jury on its own motion . . . as to [the defendants’] right to use force to protect their property”; “[T]his court has repeatedly held that where a defendant desires special instructions, and has neglected to request same, it constitutes a waiver of any right to such admonition.” (citations omitted)); State v. Lee, 80 Ariz. 213, 215-16 (1956) (rejecting, as “contrary” to “well settled” law, defendant's argument that trial court erred b

2025Thus, the defendant must explain how his conduct was justified under the specific claimed justification defense. “‘For all we know, defendant might have objected had the trial court done what the appeals court now says it was required to do’ (sua sponte provide a justification instruction).” Brown, 556 P.3d at 782 ¶ 28 (quoting State v. Gendron, 168 Ariz. 153, 154 (1991)). ¶16 Without a specific request from counsel, the court need not “determine which of these disparate justification defenses ha[s] to be included in final jury instructions.” Id. at 782 ¶ 27.

2024In Vanders II, our supreme court found there was a reasonable possibility that mental health records stemming from a violent incident and a possible mental health diagnosis were relevant to the defendant’s justification defense. 251 Ariz. at 121, ¶¶ 33-35 .

2022R.S. explained that for the defendant to prevail on a request for an in-camera review, the “request must be based on more than mere speculation and must include a sufficiently specific basis to deter fishing expeditions, prevent a wholesale production of the victim’s medical records, and adequately protect the parties’ competing interests.” Id. at 120, ¶ 30 . ¶11 In R.S., the defendant, who asserted a justification defense to the charge that he murdered his girlfriend during a domestic dispute, had personal knowledge that the victim had been hospitalized for mental health concerns after an ear

2022See Herrell, 189 Ariz. at 630 (“[T]he prosecutor failed to give the jury the apparently uncontradicted facts that might make [a justification defense] and the statutes it refers to relevant and important.”); Maretick, 204 Ariz. at 196 ¶ 5, 197 ¶ 10 (observing that “[i]t is not the prosecutor’s role to deflect the grand jury from its inquiry” where grand juror’s questions were cut off).

2014See Herrell v. Sargeant, 189 Ariz. 627, 631 , 944 P.2d 1241, 1245 (1997).

2009It is also fundamental error for the trial judge to fail to instruct on vital matters "even if not requested by the defense." State v. Johnson, 205 Ariz. 413, 417, ¶ 11 , 72 P.3d 343, 347 (App.2003) (quoting State v. Avila, 147 Ariz. 330, 337 , 710 P.2d 440, 447 (1985)). ¶ 13 A justification instruction is warranted if it is supported by the "slightest evidence." State v. Hussain, 189 Ariz. 336, 337 , 942 P.2d 1168, 1169 (App.1997) (citing State v. Dumaine, 162 Ariz. 392, 404 , 783 P.2d 1184, 1196 (1989)).

2009It is also fundamental error for the trial judge to fail to instruct on vital matters "even if not requested by the defense." State v. Johnson, 205 Ariz. 413, 417, ¶ 11 , 72 P.3d 343, 347 (App.2003) (quoting State v. Avila, 147 Ariz. 330, 337 , 710 P.2d 440, 447 (1985)). ¶ 13 A justification instruction is warranted if it is supported by the "slightest evidence." State v. Hussain, 189 Ariz. 336, 337 , 942 P.2d 1168, 1169 (App.1997) (citing State v. Dumaine, 162 Ariz. 392, 404 , 783 P.2d 1184, 1196 (1989)).

2023As a result, failure to give a justification instruction was fundamental error, “tak[ing] away a right essential to [Kemp’s] defense.” See Escalante, 245 Ariz. at 138, ¶ 1. ¶14 Still, for an error to warrant reversal, Kemp must show prejudice, which “involves a fact-intensive inquiry.” See Henderson, 210 Ariz. at 568, ¶ 26 .

2014Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, ¶¶ 19-20 , 115 P.3d at 607 . ¶26 The basic justification defense statute, § 13-404, contains subsection B, which sets forth when the threat or use of physical force against another is not justified.

2025Here, Egan expands on the same argument, contending first that the trial court improperly relied on “obiter dictum” in Bojorquez, and then claiming that to the extent Bojorquez’s language is not dictum, State v. Ewer, 254 Ariz. 326 (2023) overturned it. ¶18 In Bojorquez, an inmate was denied a justification defense instruction and convicted of assaulting a prison guard. 138 Ariz. at 497 .

2025See generally Ewer, 254 Ariz. 326 ; see also Bojorquez, 138 Ariz. at 498 .

2015State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz. 290, 309 , 896 P.2d 830, 849 (1995). “ ‘[T]he slightest evidence’ ” of justification requires that a defendant be granted a justification instruction, Ruggiero, 211 Ariz. 262, ¶ 10 , 120 P.3d at 692 , quoting State v. Hussain, 189 A-iz. 336, 337, 942 P.2d 1168, 1169 (App.1997); however, the instruction need not be given “ ‘unless it is reasonably and clearly supported by the evidence.’ ” Id. ¶ 10, quoting State v. Walters, 155 Ariz. 548, 553 , 748 P.2d 777, 782 (App.1987); see also State v. Strayhand, 184 Ariz. 571, 587-88, 911 P.2d 577, 593-94 (App.1995) (instructio

2015State v. Bolton, 182 Ariz. 290, 309 , 896 P.2d 830, 849 (1995). “ ‘[T]he slightest evidence’ ” of justification requires that a defendant be granted a justification instruction, Ruggiero, 211 Ariz. 262, ¶ 10 , 120 P.3d at 692 , quoting State v. Hussain, 189 A-iz. 336, 337, 942 P.2d 1168, 1169 (App.1997); however, the instruction need not be given “ ‘unless it is reasonably and clearly supported by the evidence.’ ” Id. ¶ 10, quoting State v. Walters, 155 Ariz. 548, 553 , 748 P.2d 777, 782 (App.1987); see also State v. Strayhand, 184 Ariz. 571, 587-88, 911 P.2d 577, 593-94 (App.1995) (instructio

2015Unlike the Roper defendant—who had presented the victim’s multiple arrests and prior domestic violence conviction as well as his extensive psychiatric treatment (at least some of which the defendant had attended) to explain why the medical records were relevant and potentially necessary to support a justification defense, 172 Ariz. at 238 , 836 P.2d at 451—Wilson has not demonstrated why the victims’ school records would help his case.

2015Unlike the Roper defendant—who had presented the victim’s multiple arrests and prior domestic violence conviction as well as his extensive psychiatric treatment (at least some of which the defendant had attended) to explain why the medical records were relevant and potentially necessary to support a justification defense, 172 Ariz. at 238 , 836 P.2d at 451—Wilson has not demonstrated why the victims’ school records would help his case.