Cited by

Proof of a defendant’s mental state may be inferred by the jury from the “behaviors and other circumstances surrounding the event.”

¶9 “The purpose of jury instructions is to inform the jury of the applicable law,” (), and a “party is entitled to any jury instruction reasonably supported by the evidence,”

(a defendant’s mental state is rarely provable by direct evidence and a jury will usually have to infer it from his behaviors and the surrounding circumstances).

(“[A] mere presence instruction provides a necessary aid to jurors in properly interpreting the acts of the accused accomplice and divining his true intent.”).

(Mere presence at a crime scene does not establish guilt.); see also A.R.S.

Importantly, jury instructions cannot “mislead the jury in any way and must give the jury an understanding of the issues.” Teran, 253 Ariz. at 170 ¶ 12 ().

Generally, proof of a defendant’s mental state must be inferred by the jury from the “behaviors and other circumstances surrounding the event.”

¶13 review dismissed established a per se rule of deficient performance if defense counsel fails to request a mere-presence instruction when the evidence supports it.

("[T]he defendant's mental state will rarely be provable by direct evidence and the jury will usually have to infer it from his behaviors and other circumstances surrounding the event.").

18.02.01, 23.10 (5th ed. 2019); (“The purpose of jury instructions is to inform the jury of the applicable law in understandable terms.”).

("Criminal intent, being a state of mind, is shown by circumstantial evidence.").

Hernandez contends that “an improperly instructed jury, particularly in the context of accomplice liability (and mere presence) is cause for reversal.” Hernandez also suggests that, because the jury asked about accomplice liability during deliberations, the instruction “clearly” influenced their deliberat

¶13 still entitle him to a mere-presence instruction.

“A set of instructions need not be faultless; however, they must not mislead the jury in any way and must give the jury an understanding of the issues.”

“In reviewing the evidence, we must draw all reasonable inferences that support the verdict.” ¶ 27 (1999); (providing that evidence of a defendant’s mental state must typically be inferred from the “behaviors and other circumstances surrounding the event”).

However, a court is not bound to “give every specific instruction requested by the defense,” so long as the “instructions adequately set forth the law applicable to the case,” id., “in understandable terms,”

Instead, jurors may “infer [a defendant’s mental state] from [the defendant’s] behaviors and other circumstances surrounding the event.”

Typically, evidence of a defendant’s mental state must be inferred from the “behaviors and other circumstances surrounding the event.”

Jurors usually must “infer [a defendant’s mental state] from [the defendant’s] behaviors and other circumstances surrounding the event.”

§ 13- 4 STATE v. ROESCHEN Decision of the Court 1814(B) (adopting permissible inference from § 13-2305(1)); ("[T]he defendant's mental state will rarely be provable by direct evidence and the jury will usually have to infer it from his behaviors and other circumstances surrounding the event.").

Instructions inform the jury how to apply the law, and we will not reverse unless the instructions, taken together, would have misled the jurors, ¶ 35 (1998).

and the linguistic universe for lay persons.”