STATE OF ARIZONA v RICKY ALONZO HIPPENSTEEL, CR-25-0203-PR

Ricky Alonzo Hippensteel was convicted of second degree murder after stabbing Derek Joseph Odle. 1
At trial, Hippensteel claimed self-defense and prevention of an assault, while the State presented eyewitness testimony portraying him as the aggressor. 2
The court instructed the jury with both a correct Lua instruction and an incorrect LeBlanc instruction on provocation manslaughter, and the verdict form likewise treated provocation manslaughter as a lesser included offense. 3
The jury found Hippensteel guilty of second degree murder, unlawful flight, and resisting arrest, and not guilty of aggravated assault against Abrigo. 4
The court of appeals affirmed, and the Arizona Supreme Court granted review to decide whether the instructional and verdict-form errors were fundamental and prejudicial. 5
The supreme court vacated the court of appeals, reversed the second degree murder conviction, and remanded for a new trial on the homicide charge. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the provocation manslaughter instruction err? 7	Hippensteel: LeBlanc instruction misdescribed provocation manslaughter.	State: the instructions, read together, adequately guided the jury.	Yes; the LeBlanc instruction was erroneous. 8
Did the verdict form compound the instructional error? 9	Hippensteel: form wrongly barred a manslaughter verdict after second degree murder.	State: form was harmless in context.	Yes; the form contained three errors and reinforced the mistake. 10
Was the error fundamental? 11	Hippensteel: error deprived him of a right essential to his defense.	State: self-defense was his real defense, so no essential right was lost.	Yes; it deprived him of meaningful consideration of provocation manslaughter. 12
Was the error prejudicial? 13	Hippensteel: a properly instructed jury could have found provocation manslaughter.	State: jury necessarily rejected provocation under the correct instruction.	Yes; a reasonable jury could plausibly have found provocation manslaughter. 14
What relief on remand? 15	Hippensteel: new trial and corrected instructions/forms.	State: no new trial; conviction should stand.	Reverse second degree murder and remand; use only Lua-style instruction and correct verdict form. 16

State v. Escalante, 245 Ariz. 135 (Ariz. 2018) (fundamental error and prejudice framework 17)
State v. Lua, 237 Ariz. 301 (Ariz. 2015) (provocation manslaughter is not a lesser included offense of second degree murder; correct instruction 18)
State v. LeBlanc, 186 Ariz. 437 (Ariz. 1996) (reasonable-efforts instruction for lesser included offenses 19)
Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684 (U.S. 1975) (due process implicated when more serious conviction is returned despite evidence supporting lesser offense 20)
State v. Valenzuela, 194 Ariz. 404 (Ariz. 1999) (failure to instruct on lesser offense can deprive defendant of a right essential to the defense 21)
State v. Murray, 250 Ariz. 543 (Ariz. 2021) (inviting jury to bypass reasonable doubt can undermine essential rights 22)
Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1985) (irreconcilable instructions leave reviewing court unable to know which jurors applied 23)
State v. Rushing, 573 P.3d 72 (Ariz. 2025) (juries are presumed to follow instructions 24)
State v. Harwood, 110 Ariz. 375 (Ariz. 1974) (heat of passion must be what an ordinarily reasonable person would experience 25)
State v. Garcia, 102 Ariz. 468 (Ariz. 1967) (trial courts should provide forms for every possible verdict 26)
Citizens Utils. Co. v. Firemen’s Ins. Co., 73 Ariz. 299 (Ariz. 1952) (reasonable jury means average intelligence and judgment using common sense 27)