James defense in Arizona

2024See Delmastro & Eells v. Taco Bell Corp., 228 Ariz. 134, 137 , ¶ 7 n.2 (App. 2011) (noting appellate court’s discretionary authority to consider the merits of deficient briefs).

2016The “same transaction or occurrence” standard is a flexible one “that is met when a logical relationship exists between the current cause of action and the previous one.” Id. (citing Technical Air Prods., Inc. v. Sheridan-Gray, Inc., 103 Ariz. 450, 452 , 445 P.2d 426, 428 (1968)). 6 HACKETT v. HACKETT Decision of the Court ¶17 Clearly there was a “logical relationship” between Donald’s claim for partition and James’s claim against Donald for breach of contract involving the same property.

2016The “same transaction or occurrence” standard is a flexible one “that is met when a logical relationship exists between the current cause of action and the previous one.” Id. (citing Technical Air Prods., Inc. v. Sheridan-Gray, Inc., 103 Ariz. 450, 452 , 445 P.2d 426, 428 (1968)). 6 HACKETT v. HACKETT Decision of the Court ¶17 Clearly there was a “logical relationship” between Donald’s claim for partition and James’s claim against Donald for breach of contract involving the same property.

2013See Henderson, 210 Ariz. at 569, ¶ 27 , 115 P.3d at 609 ; Valverde, 220 Ariz. at 586, ¶¶ 16-17 , 208 P.3d at 237 (finding no prejudice because, in context of argument, error in instructions suggested “an interpretation that would have helped rather than harmed [defendant]”); cf. Ontiveros, 206 Ariz. at 542-43, ¶¶ 18-19 , 81 P.3d at 333-34 (reversing on fundamental error grounds, even where defendant claimed he did not commit acts alleged, in light of trial evidence and State’s argument focusing on erroneous mental state in jury instructions). ¶ 17 Closing arguments did not alleviate the error.

2013See Henderson, 210 Ariz. at 569, ¶ 27 , 115 P.3d at 609 ; Valverde, 220 Ariz. at 586, ¶¶ 16-17 , 208 P.3d at 237 (finding no prejudice because, in context of argument, error in instructions suggested “an interpretation that would have helped rather than harmed [defendant]”); cf. Ontiveros, 206 Ariz. at 542-43, ¶¶ 18-19 , 81 P.3d at 333-34 (reversing on fundamental error grounds, even where defendant claimed he did not commit acts alleged, in light of trial evidence and State’s argument focusing on erroneous mental state in jury instructions). ¶ 17 Closing arguments did not alleviate the error.

2013See Henderson, 210 Ariz. at 569, ¶ 27 , 115 P.3d at 609 ; Valverde, 220 Ariz. at 586, ¶¶ 16-17 , 208 P.3d at 237 (finding no prejudice because, in context of argument, error in instructions suggested “an interpretation that would have helped rather than harmed [defendant]”); cf. Ontiveros, 206 Ariz. at 542-43, ¶¶ 18-19 , 81 P.3d at 333-34 (reversing on fundamental error grounds, even where defendant claimed he did not commit acts alleged, in light of trial evidence and State’s argument focusing on erroneous mental state in jury instructions). ¶ 17 Closing arguments did not alleviate the error.

2013See Henderson, 210 Ariz. at 569, ¶ 27 , 115 P.3d at 609 ; Valverde, 220 Ariz. at 586, ¶¶ 16-17 , 208 P.3d at 237 (finding no prejudice because, in context of argument, error in instructions suggested “an interpretation that would have helped rather than harmed [defendant]”); cf. Ontiveros, 206 Ariz. at 542-43, ¶¶ 18-19 , 81 P.3d at 333-34 (reversing on fundamental error grounds, even where defendant claimed he did not commit acts alleged, in light of trial evidence and State’s argument focusing on erroneous mental state in jury instructions). ¶ 17 Closing arguments did not alleviate the error.

2013See Ontiveros, 206 Ariz. at 543, ¶ 19 , 81 P.3d at 334 (noting State’s closing argument, which focused on intent, “did not help to alleviate the error in the instruction”). ¶ 18 Given the conflicting evidence regarding James’ mental state (providing a sufficient basis for the jury to find either intentionally or a lesser mental state of knowingly or recklessly), as well as James’ defense and the parties’ arguments, it is unknowable whether the jury found James intentionally placed the victim in reasonable apprehension of imminent physical injury (which would properly support the conviction) or

2013See Ontiveros, 206 Ariz. at 543, ¶ 19 , 81 P.3d at 334 (noting State’s closing argument, which focused on intent, “did not help to alleviate the error in the instruction”). ¶ 18 Given the conflicting evidence regarding James’ mental state (providing a sufficient basis for the jury to find either intentionally or a lesser mental state of knowingly or recklessly), as well as James’ defense and the parties’ arguments, it is unknowable whether the jury found James intentionally placed the victim in reasonable apprehension of imminent physical injury (which would properly support the conviction) or

2006Corbin v. Ybarra, 161 Ariz. 188, 194 , 777 P.2d 686, 692 (1989) (hazardous chemical report prepared by expert consultant in criminal case protected by work product immunity where soil samples were available to both parties; Rule 26(b)(4)(B) cited by analogy). 6 We are thus not persuaded by James’s argument that his counsel “had not concluded her cross-examination before the end of the adjourned hearing” and that, because his “right of cross-examination of Mr. Fox is broad, . . . [Fox’s] entire file . . . is subject to discovery.” By stipulation, James has waived his right to any further cross-

2006Corbin v. Ybarra, 161 Ariz. 188, 194 , 777 P.2d 686, 692 (1989) (hazardous chemical report prepared by expert consultant in criminal case protected by work product immunity where soil samples were available to both parties; Rule 26(b)(4)(B) cited by analogy). 6 We are thus not persuaded by James’s argument that his counsel “had not concluded her cross-examination before the end of the adjourned hearing” and that, because his “right of cross-examination of Mr. Fox is broad, . . . [Fox’s] entire file . . . is subject to discovery.” By stipulation, James has waived his right to any further cross-