Cited by

¶¶ 13–16 (App. 2003) (finding error when a trial court replaced the final sentence of a Portillo instruction with “Otherwise, you must find the defendant not guilty”).

¶ 6 (App. 2012) (circumstantial evidence may support a conviction); ¶ 8 (App. 2003) (“An intent to defraud may be, and often is, deduced from circumstantial evidence.”).

¶19 We begin with the general principle that both we and the superior court are bound by the decisions of the Arizona Supreme Court and “are not permitted ‘to overrule, modify, or disregard them.’” ¶ 15 (App. 2003) (); STATE v. WAGNER Opinion of the Court 613 (App. 1984) (“Whether prior decisio

P. 20(a) (defendant must be acquitted “if there is no substantial evidence to support a conviction”); ¶ 8 (App. 2003) (“In many cases [fraudulent intent] must be inferred from acts of the parties, and inferences may arise from a combination of acts, even though each act or instance, standing by itself, may seem unimportant.” 3 STATE v. MORRIS

¶8 (2011) (sentence imposed in contested probation revocation proceeding is not entered pursuant to underlying plea agreement); ¶ 15 (App. 2003) (court of appeals may not overrule, modify or disregard decisions of Arizona Supreme Court).

¶ 15 (App. 2003) (Court of Appeals is constrained by decisions of Arizona Supreme Court and may not overrule, modify, or disregard them).

¶ 15, (quoting City of Phoenix v. Leroy’s Liquors, Inc., ); We assume without deciding that ADOC should have followed the superior court’s order not to place Vasquez in Florence.

However, “[w]hen an error has been made in the jury instructions, we consider whether the error was harmless.” ¶ 27, (citation omitted); ¶ 19, (concluding that a trial court’s deviation from the Portillo instruction3 is subject to harmless error analysis); -32, -36 (1989) (concluding that the trial court’s omission of the final presumption of innocence instruction

¶ 15, (“[W]e are constrained by the decisions of our supreme court and are not permitted ‘to overrule, modify, or disregard them.’”) ( ).

288 ¶ 15, (“[W]e are constrained by the decisions of our supreme court and are not permitted ‘to overrule, modify, or disregard them.’”) ( , ).

we instruct that in every criminal case trial courts shall give the reasonable doubt 6 STATE v. SHIELDS Decision of the Court instruction that we set forth below.”); - 88, ¶¶ 12-16, -09 (App. 2003) (“[T]here is no question that the trial court erred by removing a portion of the mandated Portillo instruction and replacing it with language of its own choosing.”).

(court of appeals may not disregard decisions of supreme court).

However, we may not disregard or modify the law as articulated by the Arizona Supreme Court, and our reexamination of Rodriguez II leads us to conclude its reasoning was not well anchored in our supreme court’s jurisprudence.