Opinion ID: 867272
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: King's Justification Defense

Text: ¶13 We now turn to whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to King, warranted giving a self-defense instruction. See Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, 185 Ariz. 493, 503, 917 P.2d 222, 232 (1996) (viewing evidence in light most favorable to proponent of instruction); Ariz. R.Crim. P. 21.1 (applying law relating to jury instructions in civil actions to criminal actions). We review for abuse of discretion the trial court's ultimate decision to give a self-defense instruction when it granted King's motion for a new trial. See State v. Garcia, 224 Ariz. 1, 18 ¶ 75, 226 P.3d 370, 387 (2010); State v. Landrigan, 176 Ariz. 1, 4, 859 P.2d 111, 114 (1993). ¶14 A defendant is entitled to a self-defense instruction if the record contains the slightest evidence that he acted in self defense. State v. Lujan, 136 Ariz. 102, 104, 664 P.2d 646, 648 (1983). The defendant need not present evidence of each element of self defense because the state bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act with justification; thus the defendant need only present some evidence that he acted in self defense to be entitled to a self-defense instruction. A.R.S. § 13-205(A). ¶15 The State argues that King did not present even the slightest evidence that he acted in self defense. We disagree. The slightest evidence is 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 her life or sustaining great bodily harm. Lujan, 136 Ariz. at 104, 664 P.2d at 648 (quoting State v. Wallace, 83 Ariz. 220, 223, 319 P.2d 529, 531 (1957)). ¶16 As the trial court noted in granting King's motion for a new trial, the record contained some evidence that King acted in response to being hit in the head by a two-liter bottle of water thrown by the victim. The thrown bottle suffices to meet the slightest evidence standard that supports the giving of a self-defense instruction. See Lujan, 136 Ariz. at 104, 664 P.2d at 648. ¶17 This case differs from Lujan , in which we affirmed the denial of a self-defense instruction. There, the defendant provoked the hostile demonstration that he later claimed required him to act in self defense. Id. We held that [t]he privilege of self-defense is not available to one who is at fault in provoking an encounter or difficulty that results in a homicide. Id.; see also § 13-404(B)(3). Here, in contrast, King presented evidence that the victim precipitated the altercation by throwing the bottle at him without provocation. ¶18 Because King introduced evidence that he may have acted to defend himself against the victim's aggression, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that he was entitled to a justification instruction under A.R.S. § 13-404(A). The defendant need not present evidence that his response was reasonably proportionate because, by statute, the burden remains on the state to prove that the defendant's acts were not justified. See A.R.S. §§ 13-205(A), -404(A). Therefore, the State may attempt to persuade the factfinder at the new trial that King's response was not proportionate to the threat he faced, and therefore his acts were not justified.