State of Arizona v. Adolfo Noel Ruiz, Jr., 236 Ariz. 317

Background

Ruiz was convicted after a jury trial of two attempts at second-degree murder, one aggravated assault, and related counts stemming from a bar fight where a gun was fired.
A fight began with a shove; Ruiz produced a gun, fired two shots striking a victim, and later fired at another while struggling over the gun.
The jury convicted Ruiz of two counts of attempted manslaughter as lesser-included offenses and acquitted on two aggravated assault counts; he received a fifteen-year aggregate sentence.
Ruiz challenged the trial court’s instruction for attempted manslaughter under 13-1103(A)(2), arguing it allowed conviction based on intent to cause serious physical injury rather than death.
The court vacated the attempted manslaughter convictions and remanded for new trials, affirmed the aggravated assault conviction, and vacated the restitution order for a new restitution hearing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the attempted manslaughter instruction misstated mens rea	Ruiz (Ruiz) contends Ontiveros governs; intent or knowledge of death required.	State argues Barnes supports cognitive proof of serious injury suffices.	Instruction erroneous; vacate attempted manslaughter convictions.
Whether the error was fundamental and prejudicial	Ruiz asserts error undermined the trial’s foundation and burden of proof.	State claims potential harmlessness given other evidence.	Error fundamental and prejudicial; convictions vacated and remanded.
Whether the 13-401 justification instruction was harmless error	Ruiz contends unavailability of justification instruction affected verdict.	State argues the error was harmless under Valverde.	Harmless error; aggravated assault conviction affirmed.
Whether the court properly declined to further instruct on provocation/self-defense	Ruiz argues jury needed more guidance on provocation’s relation to self-defense.	State argues no abuse of discretion in returning to given instructions.	Court did not abuse discretion; no reversible error.
Whether the restitution hearing conducted without Ruiz violated rights	Ruiz argues absence at restitution hearing violated Sixth Amendment right to counsel.	State concedes error but asserts it was harmless or moot.	Restitution order vacated; remand for new restitution hearing with counsel present.

Key Cases Cited

Ontiveros v. State, 206 Ariz. 539 (App. 2003) (attempted manslaughter requires intent or knowledge that conduct will cause death)
Barnes v. State, 162 Ariz. 92 (App. 1989) (intent to cause death or serious injury governs attempt manslaughter; conduct suffices)
Peak v. Acuna, 203 Ariz. 83 (2002) (lesser offense includes greater offense plus different circumstance)
Adams v. State, 155 Ariz. 117 (App. 1987) (reckless intent cannot support attempt to commit harmful result)
Kemper v. State, 229 Ariz. 105 (App. 2011) (fundamental error when an element is misstated or omitted)
Dickinson v. State, 233 Ariz. 527 (App. 2013) (misstating elements can be fundamental error; harmlessness analyzed separately)
Amaya-Ruiz v. State, 166 Ariz. 152 (Ariz. 1990) (establishes standard for prejudice in instructional error cases)
State v. James, 231 Ariz. 490 (App. 2013) (nonexistent theory of liability as error; prejudice analysis)
State v. Valverde, 220 Ariz. 582 (App. 2009) (harmless error standard for instructional issues)
State v. Guadagni, 218 Ariz. 1 (App. 2008) (counsel present at sentencing and restitution hearings; right to counsel)
State v. Fettis, 136 Ariz. 58 (1959) (preservation of right to counsel at sentencing)
Stevens v. State, 184 Ariz. 411 (App. 1995) (court may choose to defer to given instructions rather than new ones)
Ramirez v. State, 178 Ariz. 116 (App. 1994) (jury instruction sufficiency and clarification principles)
Smethers v. Campion, 210 Ariz. 167 (App. 2005) (jury may accept or reject testimony in whole or in part)