Cited by

“A defendant is entitled to a self-defense instruction if the record contains the ‘slightest evidence’ that he acted in self-defense.” ¶ 14 (2010) ().

¶23 “A defendant is entitled to an instruction on any theory of the case reasonably supported by the evidence.” ¶ 24 (2018) ().

(A self-defense instruction is required when there is the slightest evidence showing a hostile demonstration.)

See, (finding defendant's verbal threat "provoked any threatened use of force" such that "the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct on self-defense"); (finding that defendant was not entitled to self-defense instruction when he provoked an encounter by "rip

§ 13-404(B)(3); –05 (1983) (denying defendant’s self-defense instruction because defendant provoked the encounter).

¶10 “Generally, a defendant is entitled to an instruction on any theory of the case reasonably supported by the evidence.”

Cf. King, ¶¶ 14-16 (evidence that defendant acted in response to being hit in head by water bottle thrown by victim sufficient evidence to warrant self-defense instruction); (collecting cases in which a victim’s “hostile demonstrations” sufficed to support self-defense instruction).

¶ 14 (2010) (noting “[a] defendant is entitled to a self-defense instruction if the record contains the ‘slightest evidence’ that he acted in self-defense” ()).

s instruction is provided when the record contains the “slightest evidence” of self-defense, a “low standard that has been defined in the self-defense context as ‘a hostile demonstration, which may be reasonably regarded as placing the accused apparently in imminent danger of losing h[is] life or sustaining great bodily harm.’” ¶ 15 (2010) () (alteration added).

¶24 “[A] defendant is entitled to an instruction on any theory of the case reasonably supported by the evidence.”

See State v. Lujan , , 104, , 648 (1983) ("Generally, a defendant is entitled to an instruction on any theory of the case reasonably supported by the evidence.").

(); see also Lujan, 136 Ariz. at 104 (stating that a “hostile demonstration” is “some outward act” that the “defendant perceives to be immediately life- threatening”).

¶ 16 “A defendant is entitled to a self-defense instruction if the record contains the ‘slightest evidence’ that he acted in self-defense.” King, , 235 P.3d at 243

The “slightest evidence” is evidence which tends to prove a hostile demonstration—an “outward act which may be reasonably regarded as placing the defendant in imminent danger of losing his life or sustaining great bodily harm.”

¶8 A defendant is entitled to an instruction on self-defense “if there is the slightest evidence of justification for the defensive act.” State v. Lujan, 136 Ariz. 3 STATE v. VALENZUELA-VALDEZ Decision of the Court 102, 104

A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on justification when he presents the “slightest evidence” tending to prove “a hostile demonstration, which may be reasonably regarded as placing the accused apparently in imminent danger of losing h[is] life or sustaining great bodily harm.”

(defendant entitled to self-defense instruction upon “slightest evidence of justification for the defensive act”); -99 , (defendant must produce “some evidence on each material element of the plea of self-defense”).

It is generally true that “[tjhe privilege of self-defense is not available to one who is at fault in provoking an encounter or difficulty that results in a homicide.”

A criminal defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on self defense “whenever there is the slightest evidence of justification for the defensive act.” , ( , )

We have defined “slightest evidence” as that “tending to prove a hostile demonstration, which may reasonably be regarded as placing the accused apparently in imminent danger of losing her life or sustaining great bodily harm.”

The defendant’s own testimony can raise the inference of self-defense, , even if the evidence is in conflict on this issue.