Cited by

-83 ¶¶ 17-23 (App. 11 STATE v. JONES Opinion of the Court 2015) (characterizing crime prevention justification as “more permissive” than self-defense).

When 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.” ¶ 9 (App. 2015) (quotations omitted).

¶ 17 (App. 2015) (“A trial court is not required to give a requested jury instruction if its other instructions adequately cover the issue.”).

–83, ¶¶ 17–23 (App. 2015) (characterizing crime prevention justification as “more permissive” than self-defense).

m in response to the victim’s “hostile demonstration.” “Although we normally review denial of a jury instruction for an abuse of discretion, ‘we independently assess whether the evidence supported a justification instruction, because that is a question of law and involves no discretionary factual determination.’” ¶ 4 (App. 2018) ( ¶ 9 (App. 2015)).

¶ 9 (App. 2015) (explaining an instruction is appropriate when even the “slightest evidence” supports it).

When the superior court refuses an instruction, this court must “view the evidence on appeal in the light most favorable to the proponent of the instruction.” ¶ 2 (App. 2015); ¶ 13 (2010).

But “we independently assess whether the evidence supported a justification instruction[] because that is a question of law and involves no discretionary factual determination.”

¶9 “Although we normally review denial of a jury instruction for an abuse of discretion, ‘we independently assess whether the evidence supported a justification instruction, because that is a question of law and involves no discretionary factual determination.’” ¶ 4 (App. 2018) ( ¶ 9 (App. 2015)).

A party is entitled to a jury instruction reasonably supported by the “slightest evidence.” ¶ 9 (App. 2015).

“Although we normally review denial of a jury instruction for an abuse of discretion, ‘we independently assess whether the evidence supported a justification instruction, because that is a question of law and involves no discretionary factual determination.’” ¶ 4 (App. 2018) ( ¶ 9 (App. 2015)).

¶ 9 (App. 2015) (“The ‘slightest evidence’ is sufficient [to give a jury instruction]).

State v. Almeida , , ¶ 2

State v. Almeida , , ¶ 9, , 824-25 (App. 2015).

¶ 10 (App. 2015) (allowing justification instruction where defendant testified that victim was the aggressor even though State had evidence to the contrary).

1 When a trial court refuses a jury instruction, “we view the evidence on appeal in the light most favorable to the proponent of the instruction.” -79, ¶ 2 (App. 2015) (citation omitted).

¶ 19 Inferences that “mak[e] an argument possible” do not substitute for the slightest evidence, and a justification instruction must rest upon something more than “speculation.” Vassell, , 359 P.3d at 1028 ; , (justification instruction required only if “record provides evidence ‘upon which the jury could rationally sustain the defense’ ”), -88 , -94 (App. 1995); , (

A statute can give 7Causbie also contends we should view the evidence in the light most favorable to him as the party requesting jury instructions, -24 (App. 2015)