Cited by

This 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).

¶ 14 (2010) (citation omitted).

¶ 9 (2018) ( ¶ 14 (2010)); see also Lujan, 136 Ariz. at 104 (reasoning that a defendant is 8 STATE V. RICHTER Opinion of the Court entitled to a jury instruction if there is the “slightest evidence of justification”).

¶ 12 While we acknowledge that a defendant's testimony is sufficient to raise the issue of self-defense, State v. Plew , , 77, , 245 (1986), disapproved of on other grounds by State v. King , , ¶¶ 9-12, , 242-43 (2010), and that the "slightest evidence" is all that is needed to support a justification defense, see State v. Carson , , ¶ 18, , 1234 (2018), a defendant must still demonstrate he can produce some evidence in support of his justification defense.

Thus, using force in self-defense is based on “a reasonable person's belief, not the unreasonable, even if honest, belief of the accused.” ¶ 11 (2010) (stating that justification under § 13-404 “adopts a purely objective standard, permitting the use of force only if a ‘reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself’”); Korzep, 172 Ariz. at 540 (holding that A.R.S.

al vouching occurs ‘when the prosecutor places the prestige of the government behind its witness,’ or ‘where the prosecutor suggests that information not presented to the jury supports the witness’s testimony.’” ¶ 23, ( –90, ¶¶ 9-12, -43 (2010)).

¶40 In arguing the adult pornography was prejudicial other-acts evidence under Rule 404(b)

With justification defenses, if the defendant presents some evidence of the justification, the state bears the burden of proving “beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act with justification.” Id.-, , 89-90 ¶¶ 6, 14-16, -43 (2010) (discussing that a defendant need only produce some evidence to be entitled to a justification instruction).

With justification defenses, if the defendant presents some evidence of the justification, the state bears the burden of proving “beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act with justification.” Id.; - 90 ¶¶ 6, 6 STATE V. HOLLE Opinion of the Court 14–16, -43 (2010) (discussing that a defendant need only produce some evidence to be entitled to a justification instruction).

89 ¶ 5, (reviewing issues of statutory interpretation de novo); , 43 ¶ 41, (noting that trial court’s refusal to give a jury instruction is reviewed for abuse of discretion, but legal adequacy of instructions is reviewed de novo).

al vouching occurs ‘when the prosecutor places the prestige of the government behind its witness,’ or ‘where the prosecutor suggests that information not presented to the jury supports the witness’s testimony.’” ¶ 23, ( -90, ¶¶ 9-12, -43 (2010)).

¶¶ 11-12, (noting that A.R.S.