State v. Azar, 1 CA-CR 16-0177

Victim and George Azar were friends/coworkers; Azar loaned the victim $400 to be repaid by work on Azar’s house; disputes about repayment led to tension.
On April 17, 2014, after a confrontation, Azar brandished a gun in his living room; a single shot struck the victim in the forehead and he later died.
Azar sent his employer a text admitting he had shot the victim, then made spontaneous statements at the police station; officers seized seven guns and 1.13 pounds of marijuana from his home.
Azar testified the shooting was accidental during a struggle or in self-defense; he admitted prior felony conviction and unlawful possession of firearms and marijuana.
Jury convicted Azar of second-degree murder (lesser-included), seven counts of misconduct involving weapons (prohibited possessor), and possession of marijuana; court imposed an aggravated 20-year term plus additional terms.
Azar appealed, raising evidentiary and instructional challenges; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Azar)	Held
Exclusion of methamphetamine pipe	Pipe irrelevant; toxicology already proved drug use	Pipe showed recent ingestion, motive, and concealment relevant to self-defense and state of mind	Exclusion affirmed — pipe not probative of Azar’s mens rea or self-defense and could be prejudicial (no abuse of discretion)
Admission of wife’s prior inconsistent statements via detective	Admissible extrinsic impeachment; defendant had opportunity to recall wife	Improper: State should have questioned wife about statements first	Admission not reversible — defendant declined to recall wife; no fundamental prejudice
Exclusion of third‑party statements about victim’s gang affiliation	Exclusion appropriate under Rule 403 and hearsay rules	Statements admissible to show effect on Azar’s state of mind (not for truth) and under Rule 405(A) for reputation	Exclusion affirmed — victim’s own admissions and Azar’s testimony already conveyed the belief; third‑party statements cumulative/prejudicial; no fundamental error
Failure to sua sponte instruct on manslaughter/negligent homicide	Not required sua sponte absent request; judge should exercise restraint	Court should have given lesser-included instructions sua sponte	No error — defendant pursued strategy to avoid lesser instructions; failure to sua sponte instruct did not deprive fair trial rights

State v. Ellison, 213 Ariz. 116 (2006) (trial court evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Rodriguez, 186 Ariz. 240 (1996) (deference to trial court on admissibility/relevance)
State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561 (2005) (standard for fundamental error review)
State v. Gipson, 229 Ariz. 484 (2012) (restraint on sua sponte lesser‑included instructions)
State v. Emery, 131 Ariz. 493 (1982) (requirements when introducing extrinsic prior inconsistent statements)
Shotwell v. Donahoe, 207 Ariz. 287 (2004) (Rule 403 balancing—assess probative value relative to prejudice)
State v. Hernandez, 170 Ariz. 301 (1992) (out‑of‑court statements admissible to show effect on listener)
State v. Vanderlinden, 111 Ariz. 378 (1975) (defendant may strategically decline lesser‑included instructions)