Cited by

The only question is “whether a reasonable person in the defendant’s circumstances would have believed that physical force was immediately necessary to protect himself.” ¶ 12 (2010) (cleaned up).

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

¶24 “Justification is not an affirmative defense that the defendant must prove.” ¶ 6 (2010).

¶12 Of course, “[t]he use of a witness’s mental condition for impeachment purposes is proper if there is an indication that the mental condition affected the truth of his testimony.”

¶15 We begin by examining the final jury instructions and the related statutes governing self-defense and justification, mindful that “[j]ustification is not an affirmative defense that the defendant must prove.” ¶ 6 (2010).

“[I]f the defendant presents evidence of self defense, the state bears the burden of proving ‘beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act with justification.’” (quoting A.R.S.

¶22 To resolve this issue, we examine the final jury instructions and the related statutes governing self-defense and justification, mindful 7 STATE v. SULU-KERR Opinion of the Court that “[j]ustification is not an affirmative defense that the defendant must prove.” ¶ 6 (2010).

¶ 16 (2010) (holding that a full two- liter water bottle thrown at defendant’s head “suffices to meet the ‘slightest evidence’ standard that supports the giving of a self-defense instruction”).

“[T]he sole question is whether a reasonable person in the defendant’s circumstances would have believed that physical force was ‘immediately necessary to protect himself.’” ¶ 12 (2010) (quoting § 13- 404(A)).

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

her defendant”; “there is a significant disparity in the amount of evidence introduced against each of the two defendants”; “co-defendants present defenses that are so antagonistic that they are mutually exclusive”; or “the conduct of one defendant’s defense harms the other defendant.” (citations omitted), ¶ 12 (2010).

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).

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

¶ 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” ()).

e 4 STATE v. MACIAS Decision of the Court the prosecutor suggests that information not presented to the jury supports the witness’s testimony.” ¶ 6 (App. 2014) ( ).