State of Arizona v. Andy Daniel Almeida, 238 Ariz. 77

Almeida was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon after a road-rage incident in which the other driver (the “victim”) allegedly brandished a gun, chased Almeida’s vehicle, and ran red lights.
Almeida’s fiancée and son were in his vehicle; his fiancée testified she saw the victim wave a gun and was frightened for herself and the child.
Almeida stepped out of his car briefly while holding his handgun at a traffic light, then reentered and drove away; police later searched the victim’s car and found no weapon.
The trial court instructed on self-defense, defense of others, and defensive display of a firearm, but refused Almeida’s requested instruction under the crime-prevention statute, A.R.S. § 13-411.
On appeal Almeida argued the court erred in refusing the § 13-411 instruction; the State argued either that other instructions adequately covered the issue or that any error was harmless.
The Court of Appeals reviewed de novo whether the evidence supported the § 13-411 instruction and reversed the conviction, remanding for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence supported a jury instruction on crime-prevention (§ 13-411)	State: instruction not supported by evidence	Almeida: slight evidence of prevention (victim’s gun display, tailgating, chase) warranted instruction	Court: evidence (viewed favorably to Almeida) met the "slightest evidence" standard; instruction required
Whether § 13-411 is limited to contemporaneous/ongoing crimes	State: statute uses present tense so not applicable to after-the-fact acts	Almeida: prevention can be preemptive; present tense includes future under A.R.S. § 1-214(A)	Court: prevention can be preemptive; statute applies when defendant reasonably believed further assault was imminent
Whether self-defense/defense-of-others instructions made § 13-411 unnecessary	State: other instructions covered the justification theory	Almeida: § 13-411 protects different harms and contains a presumption of reasonableness unique to it	Court: other instructions do not adequately cover § 13-411’s distinct scope and its presumption; separate instruction required
Whether denial of the § 13-411 instruction was harmless error	State: any error was harmless because Almeida’s justification was not credible	Almeida: exclusion of distinct statutory theory and presumption likely affected verdict	Court: state failed to prove harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt; error not harmless; reversal required

State v. Korzep, 165 Ariz. 490 (1990) (crime-prevention is a distinct, more permissive justification and presumption of reasonableness is important)
Korzep v. Superior Court, 172 Ariz. 534 (App. 1992) (discussion of crime-prevention presumption in related context)
State v. Anderson, 210 Ariz. 327 (App. 2005) (distinguishing after-the-fact defensive acts where no prevention possible)
State v. King, 225 Ariz. 87 (2010) (slightest evidence standard for giving a defensive instruction)
State v. Garcia, 224 Ariz. 1 (2010) (court need not give redundant instructions if already adequately covered)
State v. Martinez, 202 Ariz. 507 (App. 2002) (previous allocation of burden issues under earlier statutory scheme)
State v. Dorman, 167 Ariz. 153 (1991) (failure to instruct on a defense can prejudice the defendant and warrant reversal)