self-defense instruction in Arizona

2025“A defendant is entitled to a self-defense instruction if the record contains the ‘slightest evidence’ that he acted in self-defense.” State v. King, 225 Ariz. 87 , 90 ¶ 14 (2010) (quoting State v. Lujan, 136 Ariz. 102, 104 (1983)).

2024See King, 225 Ariz. at 88 , ¶ 2 and 90, ¶ 16 (A full two-liter bottle thrown at the defendant’s head “suffices to meet the ‘slightest evidence’ standard that supports the giving of a self-defense instruction.”); Everett v. State, 88 Ariz. 293, 297-99 (1960) (Victim following 4 STATE v. LAMPE Decision of the Court defendant closely with his hand in his pocket and threatening to “finish doing you in” was a hostile demonstration.); State v. Johnson, 108 Ariz. 42, 43 (1972) (Victim cursing and bending over in his car was sufficient evidence for a self-defense jury instruction when the defendant wa

2025“A defendant is entitled to a self-defense instruction if the record contains the ‘slightest evidence’ that he acted in self-defense.” State v. King, 225 Ariz. 87 , 90 ¶ 14 (2010) (quoting State v. Lujan, 136 Ariz. 102, 104 (1983)).

2024See State v. Lujan, 136 Ariz. 102, 104 (1983) (A self-defense instruction is required when there is the slightest evidence showing a hostile demonstration.) (citation omitted). ¶11 The State argues that the trial evidence did not show hostility, given the minimal force Collins used on Lampe.

2010The court granted *89 the motion, concluding that it had applied the wrong standard when considering whether to give the self-defense instruction. ¶ 4 The court of appeals reversed the order granting the new trial, holding that King was not entitled to a self-defense instruction because he had not presented sufficient evidence that he acted solely from fear of immediate physical danger, citing State v. Dumaine, 162 Ariz. 392, 404 , 783 P.2d 1184, 1196 (1989).

2010The court granted *89 the motion, concluding that it had applied the wrong standard when considering whether to give the self-defense instruction. ¶ 4 The court of appeals reversed the order granting the new trial, holding that King was not entitled to a self-defense instruction because he had not presented sufficient evidence that he acted solely from fear of immediate physical danger, citing State v. Dumaine, 162 Ariz. 392, 404 , 783 P.2d 1184, 1196 (1989).

1989State v. Noriega, 142 Ariz. 474, 482 , 690 P.2d 775, 783 (1984).

1989State v. Noriega, 142 Ariz. 474, 482 , 690 P.2d 775, 783 (1984).

2024When determining whether a defendant is entitled to a self-defense instruction, the superior court does not weigh the evidence or resolve conflicts in the evidence but merely “decides whether the record provides evidence upon which the jury could rationally sustain the defense.” State v. Almeida, 238 Ariz. 77, 80, ¶ 9 (App. 2015) (quotations omitted).

2022See Almeida, 238 Ariz. 77, ¶¶ 11, 13 (“court could not deny the [crime-prevention] instruction here simply because the victim was not committing an aggravated assault at the moment [the defendant] acted to prevent such an offense”); cf. State v. Carson, 243 Ariz. 463 , ¶¶ 18-20 (2018) (defendant need not produce proof of every element of self-defense, entitled to instruction where victims had “jumped” defendant and one victim had knife, despite “substantial evidence” suggesting he did not act in self-defense); King, 225 Ariz. 87, ¶¶ 2, 15-16 (defendant entitled to self-defense instruction afte

1989Moreover, a defendant is entitled to a self-defense instruction “whenever there is the slightest evidence of justification for the defensive act.” State v. Bojor-quez, 138 Ariz. 495, 497 , 675 P.2d 1314, 1316 (1984).

1989Moreover, a defendant is entitled to a self-defense instruction “whenever there is the slightest evidence of justification for the defensive act.” State v. Bojor-quez, 138 Ariz. 495, 497 , 675 P.2d 1314, 1316 (1984).

2024See King, 225 Ariz. at 88 , ¶ 2 and 90, ¶ 16 (A full two-liter bottle thrown at the defendant’s head “suffices to meet the ‘slightest evidence’ standard that supports the giving of a self-defense instruction.”); Everett v. State, 88 Ariz. 293, 297-99 (1960) (Victim following 4 STATE v. LAMPE Decision of the Court defendant closely with his hand in his pocket and threatening to “finish doing you in” was a hostile demonstration.); State v. Johnson, 108 Ariz. 42, 43 (1972) (Victim cursing and bending over in his car was sufficient evidence for a self-defense jury instruction when the defendant wa

2009See, e.g., State v. Johnson 108 Ariz. 42, 43, 44 , 492 P.2d 703, 704, 705 (1972) (finding "sufficient evidence” existed to warrant self-defense instruction but articulating standard as "slightest evidence”).

2023See State v. Farley, 199 Ariz. 542 , 543–44, ¶ 7 (App. 2001) (explaining that before the legislature enacted § 13-205(A), the parties’ burdens on self-defense were governed by Arizona common law, which required the State to prove the defendant’s conduct was not justified if the defendant presented “any evidence” of justification). 3 STATE v. LOWERY Decision of the Court for, or present sufficient evidence to justify, a self-defense instruction at trial. ¶7 The trial court denied relief based on its determination that Lowery did not present sufficient evidence to warrant a self-defense instruct

2002Based on State v. Farley, 199 Ariz. 542 , 19 P.3d 1258 (App.2001), Division One of this court rejected the defendant’s argument in Casey that the trial court’s self-defense instruction had improperly shifted the burden of proof to him. 2 .

2018See, e.g. , State v. Plew , 150 Ariz. 75 , 78, 722 P.2d 243 , 246 (1986) ("A defendant who denies shooting the victim may not thereafter claim self-defense,"); State v. Williams , 132 Ariz. 153 , 156, 644 P.2d 889 , 892 (1982) ("[S]imple logic demands that a 'defendant who disclaims any assaultive behavior on his part is not entitled to a self defense instruction.' " (quoting State v. Miller , 129 Ariz. 42 , 43, 628 P.2d 590 , 591 (App. 1981) ) ); State v. Ruggiero , 211 Ariz. 262 , 265 ¶ 11, 120 P.3d 690 , 693 (App. 2005) ("A defendant who disclaims any assaultive behavior on his part is not

2018See, e.g. , State v. Plew , 150 Ariz. 75 , 78, 722 P.2d 243 , 246 (1986) ("A defendant who denies shooting the victim may not thereafter claim self-defense,"); State v. Williams , 132 Ariz. 153 , 156, 644 P.2d 889 , 892 (1982) ("[S]imple logic demands that a 'defendant who disclaims any assaultive behavior on his part is not entitled to a self defense instruction.' " (quoting State v. Miller , 129 Ariz. 42 , 43, 628 P.2d 590 , 591 (App. 1981) ) ); State v. Ruggiero , 211 Ariz. 262 , 265 ¶ 11, 120 P.3d 690 , 693 (App. 2005) ("A defendant who disclaims any assaultive behavior on his part is not

2024See State v. Melendez, 256 Ariz. 14, ¶¶ 60, 63 (App. 2023).

2024See State v. Melendez, 256 Ariz. 14, ¶¶ 60, 63 (App. 2023).

2024See State v. Fish, 222 Ariz. 109, 130, ¶ 68 (App. 2009) (When self-defense is the defendant’s entire case, the jury must be correctly instructed.).

2023See State v. Fish, 222 Ariz. 109 , 128 ¶¶ 63–64 (App. 2009) (holding that jury instructions regarding relevant law may be appropriate to assist the jury in determining validity of a self-defense claim).

2020See State v. Willits, 96 Ariz. 184 , 190–91 (1964); Glenn v. Chenowth, 71 Ariz. 271 , 273–74 (1951) (holding a self-defense instruction was improper in a civil suit where neither party asserted such a claim and “[t]he instruction was susceptible of conveying the impression to the jury that the trial judge may possibly have thought that [the plaintiff] had been attacked by [the defendant]”). 24 STATE V.

2020See State v. Willits, 96 Ariz. 184 , 190–91 (1964); Glenn v. Chenowth, 71 Ariz. 271 , 273–74 (1951) (holding a self-defense instruction was improper in a civil suit where neither party asserted such a claim and “[t]he instruction was susceptible of conveying the impression to the jury that the trial judge may possibly have thought that [the plaintiff] had been attacked by [the defendant]”). 24 STATE V.

2017Similarly, in State v. Dixon, when the defendant “completely denied shooting the victim,” the court correctly denied a self-defense instruction, finding the record “totally devoid of any testimony which would provide the basis for the giving of such an instruction.” 15 Ariz.App. 62, 64 , 485 P.2d 1179, 1181 (1971). ¶28 The defendants in Miller, Ruggiero, and Dixon adopted an “all or nothing” defense, flatly denying they committed the acts giving rise to the charged offenses.

2017Similarly, in State v. Dixon, when the defendant “completely denied shooting the victim,” the court correctly denied a self-defense instruction, finding the record “totally devoid of any testimony which would provide the basis for the giving of such an instruction.” 15 Ariz.App. 62, 64 , 485 P.2d 1179, 1181 (1971). ¶28 The defendants in Miller, Ruggiero, and Dixon adopted an “all or nothing” defense, flatly denying they committed the acts giving rise to the charged offenses.

2000A self-defense instruction must be given if the defendant demonstrates that “(1) he reasonably believed he was in immediate physical danger; (2) he acted solely because of his belief; and (3) he used no more force than appeared reasonably necessary under the circumstances.” State v. Walters, 155 Ariz. 548, 553 , 748 P.2d 777, 782 (App.1987).

2000A self-defense instruction must be given if the defendant demonstrates that “(1) he reasonably believed he was in immediate physical danger; (2) he acted solely because of his belief; and (3) he used no more force than appeared reasonably necessary under the circumstances.” State v. Walters, 155 Ariz. 548, 553 , 748 P.2d 777, 782 (App.1987).

2009II. ¶ 13 In Hunter , we held that the failure to instruct on the burden of proof as to the defendant’s self-defense claim constituted fundamental error in that ease. 142 Ariz. at 90 , 688 P.2d at 982 .

2009II. ¶ 13 In Hunter , we held that the failure to instruct on the burden of proof as to the defendant’s self-defense claim constituted fundamental error in that ease. 142 Ariz. at 90 , 688 P.2d at 982 .

2018See, e.g. , State v. Plew , 150 Ariz. 75 , 78, 722 P.2d 243 , 246 (1986) ("A defendant who denies shooting the victim may not thereafter claim self-defense,"); State v. Williams , 132 Ariz. 153 , 156, 644 P.2d 889 , 892 (1982) ("[S]imple logic demands that a 'defendant who disclaims any assaultive behavior on his part is not entitled to a self defense instruction.' " (quoting State v. Miller , 129 Ariz. 42 , 43, 628 P.2d 590 , 591 (App. 1981) ) ); State v. Ruggiero , 211 Ariz. 262 , 265 ¶ 11, 120 P.3d 690 , 693 (App. 2005) ("A defendant who disclaims any assaultive behavior on his part is not

2017In State v. Miller, the trial court correctly denied a self-defense instruction when the defendant testified and disclaimed all assaultive behavior and “no evidence” otherwise suggested self-defense. 129 Ariz. 42, 43 , 628 P.2d 690, 591 (App. 1981).

2024See King, 225 Ariz. at 88 , ¶ 2 and 90, ¶ 16 (A full two-liter bottle thrown at the defendant’s head “suffices to meet the ‘slightest evidence’ standard that supports the giving of a self-defense instruction.”); Everett v. State, 88 Ariz. 293, 297-99 (1960) (Victim following 4 STATE v. LAMPE Decision of the Court defendant closely with his hand in his pocket and threatening to “finish doing you in” was a hostile demonstration.); State v. Johnson, 108 Ariz. 42, 43 (1972) (Victim cursing and bending over in his car was sufficient evidence for a self-defense jury instruction when the defendant wa

2018Several individuals simultaneously hitting and kicking, at least one of whom was visibly armed with a knife, was undoubtedly a "hostile demonstration." Cf. King , 225 Ariz. at 90 ¶ 16, 235 P.3d at 243 (concluding that a self-defense instruction was warranted where the defendant "acted in response to being hit in the head by a two-liter bottle of water thrown by the victim," because "[t]he thrown bottle suffices to meet the 'slightest evidence' standard...."); Everett v. State , 88 Ariz. 293 , 298, 356 P.2d 394 (1960) (stating that victim made a "hostile demonstration" by following the defendan

2018See, e.g. , State v. Plew , 150 Ariz. 75 , 78, 722 P.2d 243 , 246 (1986) ("A defendant who denies shooting the victim may not thereafter claim self-defense,"); State v. Williams , 132 Ariz. 153 , 156, 644 P.2d 889 , 892 (1982) ("[S]imple logic demands that a 'defendant who disclaims any assaultive behavior on his part is not entitled to a self defense instruction.' " (quoting State v. Miller , 129 Ariz. 42 , 43, 628 P.2d 590 , 591 (App. 1981) ) ); State v. Ruggiero , 211 Ariz. 262 , 265 ¶ 11, 120 P.3d 690 , 693 (App. 2005) ("A defendant who disclaims any assaultive behavior on his part is not

2018See, e.g. , State v. Plew , 150 Ariz. 75 , 78, 722 P.2d 243 , 246 (1986) ("A defendant who denies shooting the victim may not thereafter claim self-defense,"); State v. Williams , 132 Ariz. 153 , 156, 644 P.2d 889 , 892 (1982) ("[S]imple logic demands that a 'defendant who disclaims any assaultive behavior on his part is not entitled to a self defense instruction.' " (quoting State v. Miller , 129 Ariz. 42 , 43, 628 P.2d 590 , 591 (App. 1981) ) ); State v. Ruggiero , 211 Ariz. 262 , 265 ¶ 11, 120 P.3d 690 , 693 (App. 2005) ("A defendant who disclaims any assaultive behavior on his part is not

2017In Plew, 150 Ariz. at 77-78 , 722 P.2d at 245-46 , our supreme court reversed the trial court’s denial of a self-defense instruction when the record contained some evidence to support any of three theories: (1) guilt, (2) self-defense, or (3) an accident.

2017In Plew, 150 Ariz. at 77-78 , 722 P.2d at 245-46 , our supreme court reversed the trial court’s denial of a self-defense instruction when the record contained some evidence to support any of three theories: (1) guilt, (2) self-defense, or (3) an accident.

2025See Romero, 240 Ariz. at 510, ¶ 15 (“Whether an error is harmless may also be considered in the context of a party’s ability to present the substance of his claim or defense.”). ¶14 This conclusion is especially true given the evidence contradicting Caldera’s self-defense claim.

2025Romero, 240 Ariz. at 508, ¶ 8-9 (Not all harmless error factors will apply or carry the same weight, and overwhelming evidence “alone may be dispositive.”) Caldera admitted that although the victim threatened to stab him, he did not see a weapon and that he shot the victim at least five times.

2024See State v. Noleen, 142 Ariz. 101, 108 (1984) (holding that counsel’s failure to request a self-defense instruction in murder case did not constitute IAC because defense was based on “the theory of accidental homicide . . . rather than self-defense”); see also State v. Bigger, 251 Ariz. 402, 408, ¶ 12 (2021) (“[M]atters of trial strategy and tactics are committed to defense counsel’s judgment and generally cannot serve as the basis for an IAC claim.”) (cleaned up); State v. Valdez, 160 Ariz. 9, 14 (1989) (“Defense counsel’s determinations of trial strategy, even if later proven unsuccessful,

2024See State v. Noleen, 142 Ariz. 101, 108 (1984) (holding that counsel’s failure to request a self-defense instruction in murder case did not constitute IAC because defense was based on “the theory of accidental homicide . . . rather than self-defense”); see also State v. Bigger, 251 Ariz. 402, 408, ¶ 12 (2021) (“[M]atters of trial strategy and tactics are committed to defense counsel’s judgment and generally cannot serve as the basis for an IAC claim.”) (cleaned up); State v. Valdez, 160 Ariz. 9, 14 (1989) (“Defense counsel’s determinations of trial strategy, even if later proven unsuccessful,

2024Cf. Andersen, 177 Ariz. at 386 (rejecting claim that trial counsel was deficient by not requesting self- defense instruction where defendant testified that he shot victim by accident and did not present “the slightest evidence supporting a self-defense instruction”).

2024See Leteve, 237 Ariz. at 523, ¶ 25 . 6 STATE v. LAMPE Decision of the Court CONCLUSION ¶18 We reverse Lampe’s conviction and sentence and remand the case for a new trial.

2024See State v. Noleen, 142 Ariz. 101, 108 (1984) (holding that counsel’s failure to request a self-defense instruction in murder case did not constitute IAC because defense was based on “the theory of accidental homicide . . . rather than self-defense”); see also State v. Bigger, 251 Ariz. 402, 408, ¶ 12 (2021) (“[M]atters of trial strategy and tactics are committed to defense counsel’s judgment and generally cannot serve as the basis for an IAC claim.”) (cleaned up); State v. Valdez, 160 Ariz. 9, 14 (1989) (“Defense counsel’s determinations of trial strategy, even if later proven unsuccessful,

2024State v. Rix, 256 Ariz. 125 , 137, ¶ 38 (App. 2023) (“The sole purpose of jury instructions is to correctly inform jurors of the applicable law.”); State v. Mendoza, 234 Ariz. 259, 262, ¶ 15 (App. 2014) (“Jury instructions must ‘adequately set forth the law applicable to the case.’”).

2023State v. Solis, 236 Ariz. 285, 286, ¶ 6 (App. 2014).