Cited by

reasonably supported by the evidence,” State v. Shumway, 137 Ariz. 5 STATE v. MIRANDA Decision of the Court 585, 588 (1983), but the superior court need not give an instruction that “does not fit the facts of the particular case, or is adequately covered by the other instructions,”

¶ 9 (App. 2015) (noting that a justification instruction is not required unless the evidence “reasonably and clearly” supports it); (“A trial court .

A party is entitled to a jury instruction on any theory reasonably supported by the evidence, Moody, 208 Ariz. at 467, ¶ 197, but a court does not err by refusing to give an instruction that “does not fit the facts of the particular case[] or is adequately covered by the other instructions,” (citation omitted); (“A trial court is not required to give a proposed instruction when its substance is adequately covered by other instructions.” (citation omitted)).

The “slightest evidence” of justification is sufficient to entitle the defendant to an instruction, Almeida, (), but if the instruction does not fit the facts of a particular case, the trial court does not err by refusing to give it

§ 13–105(15) (“’Deadly physical force’ means force that is used with the purpose of causing death or serious physical injury or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of creating a substantial risk of causing death or serious physical injury.”); (concluding that four stab wounds to the victim’s chest constitutes deadly physical force).

¶21 The superior court may refuse a requested jury instruction if it is “adequately covered by the other instructions.”

(the superior court does not err in refusing to give an instruction that does not fit the facts of the case).

A party is entitled to a jury instruction on any theory the evidence reasonably supports, ¶ 197 (2004), but a court does not err by refusing to give a jury instruction that “does not fit the facts of the particular case, or is adequately covered by the other instructions,” (“A trial court is not required to give a proposed instruction when its substance is adequately covered by other instructions.”).

Nevertheless, a court does not err by refusing to give a jury instruction that “does not fit the facts of the particular case, or is adequately covered by the other instructions.” (“A trial court is not required to give a proposed instruction when its substance is adequately covered by other instructions.”).

A party is entitled to a jury instruction on any theory reasonably supported by the evidence, ¶ 197 (2004), but a court does not err by refusing to give an instruction that “does not fit the facts of the particular case, or is adequately covered by the other instructions.” (“A trial court is not required to give a proposed instruction when its substance is adequately covered by other instructions.”).

“‘[T]he slightest evidence’” of justification requires that a defendant be granted a justification instruction, Ruggiero, 120 P.3d at 692, however, the instruction need not be given “‘unless it is reasonably and clearly supported by the evidence.’” Id.

See, e.g., State v. Korzep (Korzep I), 494 n.1, 835 n.1 (1990)

The entitlement arises where an instruction is supported by “‘the slightest evidence.’” ( ).

does not fit the facts of the particular case.” (citation omitted) (internal quotations omitted).

(holding defendant’s version of events provided the requisite “slightest evidence” to support crime-prevention defense instruction).

(trial court does not err in refusing to give jury instruction that is incorrect statement of law).

¶ 13 A justification instruction is warranted if it is supported by the “slightest evidence.” , ( , ).

¶10 As Ruggiero correctly argues, “a defendant is entitled to a justification instruction if it is supported by ‘the slightest evidence.’”

See, , Korzep, 165 Ariz. at 492 , 799 P.2d at 833 ; ¶ 5

(resident need not wait until assailant enters home to use force against assailant); , (resident entitled to § 13 — 411 instruction when force used to prevent crime by coresident); , (person staying in motel room is resident of room and entitled to § 13-411 instruction); , (statute “is applicable only to persons protecting the home, its contents, or the residents within,” and defendant could not invoke de

P.2d 1168 (App. 1997) (defendants are not entitled to jury instructions based on incorrect statements of law).

(hotel room qualifies as a residential structure under Arizona’s similarly broad burglary statute); , (hotel room is as much the object of Fourth Amendment protection as a home or office).