State v. Abdi, 226 Ariz. 361

Abdulkadir Abdi was convicted of aggravated assault for stabbing L. after allegedly forcing entry into L.'s residence.
Abdi contends the trial court erred by giving two jury instructions requested by the State and by several evidentiary rulings.
The challenged jury instruction, modeled on A.R.S. § 13-419, stated the victim is presumed to have acted reasonably if a unlawful entry occurred into the home.
Abdi argued this instruction created a mandatory presumption in favor of the victim, effectively shifting the burden of proof.
The court held § 13-419 applies to a defendant raising a justification defense, and the instruction as applied to the victim was a mandatory presumption.
The Arizona Court of Appeals vacated Abdi’s conviction and sentence and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the trial court's § 13-419 instruction create a mandatory presumption?	Abdi argues the instruction improperly presumed the victim acted reasonably.	Abdi's position is that the instruction shifts the burden of proof from the State to Abdi.	Yes, it created a mandatory presumption.
Was the § 13-419 instruction reversible error not cured by other instructions?	Abdi maintains the presumption unconstitutionally shifted burden.	The State contends the charge, read with all instructions, did not shift the burden.	The error was reversible; vacate conviction.
Did the trial court err in instructing that neither side must call all witnesses or produce all items?	Abdi argues the instruction could mislead that the State need not prove all elements.	State contends instruction, read in context, informs that evidence need not be exhaustive but sufficient.	No reversible error; instruction proper in context.
Were the evidentiary rulings excluding evidence of L.'s immigration status and Abdi's torture testimony proper?	Abdi contends exclusion denied a complete defense and relevant motive/credibility information.	State argues cross-examination restrictions and exclusion were within trial court discretion due to relevance and potential confusion.	No reversible error; rulings within discretion; no fundamental error.

State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246 (App.1999) (standard for viewing facts in favor of affirming verdict)
State v. Orendain, 188 Ariz. 54 (1997) (statutory interpretation framework for § 13-419)
State v. Gallegos, 178 Ariz. 1 (1994) (instructions viewed as a whole for adequacy of law reflection)
State v. King, 225 Ariz. 87 (2010) (state must prove lack of justification if defendant presents self-defense evidence)
Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S. 307 (1985) (due process concerns with presumptions on essential elements)
State v. Mohr, 150 Ariz. 564 (App.1986) (unconstitutional mandatory presumptions)
State v. Bracy, 145 Ariz. 520 (1985) (evidentiary ruling context and cross-examination scope)
Cañez, 202 Ariz. 133 (2002) (limits on cross-examination collateral matters; relevance balancing)
Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561 (2005) (fundamental error review for right to present a complete defense)