Cited by

¶ 20 (2009) (“The defendant’s intent is not an element of the strict liability offense of driving while intoxicated.”); (The DUI offense “does not require proof of a culpable mental state.”).

(response to juror’s question); ¶ 15 (2009) (adequacy of jury instructions).

“A conviction will not be reversed based on the instructions unless, taken as a whole, they misled the jurors.” ¶ 15 (2009).

(response to juror’s question); ¶ 15 (2009) (adequacy of jury instructions).

See, ¶ 15 (2009); ¶ 42 (2006); ¶ 15 (2006).

54, ¶¶ 7, 21 (2009) (clarifying that Arizona criminalizes the actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, which includes the “exercise of present or imminent control over the vehicle while impaired”) (emphasis added).

§§ 28- 1381 (driving under the influence); -1382 (driving under extreme influence); ¶ 20 (2009).

¶ 62 (2004); ¶ 15 (2009) (“[W]e review de novo whether a jury instruction correctly states the law .

A jury instruction “need only be ‘substantially free from error.’” ¶ 15 (2009) ( ¶ 15 (2007)).

“[W]e review de novo whether a jury instruction correctly states the law,” ¶ 15, but “we will not reverse a conviction unless the instructions, taken as a whole, misled the jurors,” Kuhs, 223 Ariz. at 384 ¶ 37, 224 P.3d at 200.

Our supreme court, however, has instructed that the finder of fact should consider the totality of the circumstances in “determining whether the defendant’s current or imminent control of the vehicle presented a real danger to [himself] [herself] or others at the time alleged.” 54, ¶¶ 12, 21, 634 (2009).

to include more than just driving.” ¶¶ 7–8, (emphasis added).

6 STATE v. JUAREZ-ORCI Opinion of the Court 49, ¶ 15, quoting Cox, 174 P.3d at 268.

¶ 21, but included additional language regarding use of a vehicle as a “stationary shelter.” ¶6 Tarr also requested the following instruction (“Special Instruction”): The law does not forbid an individual from using a vehicle as a stationary shelter when there

(citation omitted) ( ¶ 15, ) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Arizona likewise requires fact finders to assess the totality of the evidence and to consider similar factors when determining actual physical control, but those considerations ultimately require fact finders “to decide if a defendant ‘actually posed a threat to the public.’”

A court is not required to give a separate instruction if its substance has already been covered by other instructions, id., and “[a] conviction will not be reversed based on the instructions unless, taken as a whole, they misled the jurors.” ¶ 15

But although that would be proper if we were reviewing the propriety of the instruction retrospectively and deciding on appeal whether there had been error, see, it would not be appropriate to do so here, before the case is tried.

But although that would be proper if we were reviewing the propriety of the instruction retrospectively and deciding on appeal whether there had been error, see, , it would not be appropriate to do so here, before the case is tried.