391 P.3d 1198
Ariz. Ct. App.2017Background
- Carson was tried as the lone shooter in an October 2013 party shooting in which two men (J.M. and S.B.) were killed and a third (B.C.) was seriously wounded; he was convicted of two counts of second-degree murder and two counts of aggravated assault.
- Eyewitnesses placed Carson at the scene with a black nine‑millimeter gun and saw him display a gun during an earlier inside altercation.
- Multiple witnesses described Carson being jumped, punched, and kicked by a group of men (including J.M. and S.B.) while he was on the ground; knives were found near S.B.’s body.
- Several witnesses identified Carson as the shooter; several others did not. The murder weapon(s) were never recovered; ten nine‑millimeter casings were found at the scene.
- At trial Carson pursued primarily a mistaken‑identity defense but requested a self‑defense/justification instruction; the trial court denied that instruction relying on prior authority that a defendant who denies committing the act cannot claim self‑defense.
- On appeal the court considered (1) whether the slightest evidence of justification existed and (2) whether a defendant may seek both mistaken identity and justification instructions; it affirmed aggravated assault convictions (B.C.) but reversed murder convictions (J.M. and S.B.) and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Carson's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Carson preserved objection to denial of justification instruction | Court cited Gilfillan; failure to object to that legal basis forfeits review | Carson timely requested instruction in writing and argued the point at sidebar; issue preserved | Preserved — defendant complied with Rule 21.3(c) and timely argued the issue |
| Standard for giving self‑defense/justification instruction | Instruction unnecessary where defendant denies commission; inconsistent defenses may be prohibited | Even if asserting mistaken identity, defendant may argue "if you find I did it, I acted in self‑defense"; instruction required if slightest evidence supports it | A defendant is entitled to instruction if record contains the "slightest evidence" of justification; inconsistent defenses are not per se barred |
| Whether evidence supported justification as to B.C. (aggravated assault counts) | No adequate evidence B.C. used or threatened deadly force; inference of second shooter speculative | Evidence (proximity, that B.C. was shot, possible .40 gun in car, T.C.’s lies) could permit inference of threat | Denial of instruction as to B.C. was proper — justification claim rested on speculation and lacked required slightest evidence |
| Whether evidence supported justification as to J.M. and S.B. (murder counts) | State argued victims were shot while fleeing and wounds inconsistent with immediate deadly threat | Carson showed group assault, knives, and being jumped — slight evidence of imminent deadly force | Reversal as to murders: slight evidence existed that Carson reasonably faced deadly force from assailants (J.M., S.B.), so jury should have been instructed on justification |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. King, 225 Ariz. 87 (2010) ("slightest evidence" standard for self‑defense instruction; objective reasonable person in defendant's circumstances)
- State v. Gilfillan, 196 Ariz. 396 (App. 1999) (discussed — denial of self‑defense instruction where defendant denied committing the act)
- State v. Lujan, 136 Ariz. 102 (1983) (explaining "slightest evidence" threshold)
- State v. Plew, 150 Ariz. 75 (1986) (instruction required when record permits multiple interpretations including self‑defense)
- State v. McPhaul, 174 Ariz. 561 (App. 1992) (permitting inconsistent defenses where record supports alternative theory)
- State v. Vassell, 238 Ariz. 281 (App. 2015) (instruction not required where justification theory rests on speculation)
- State v. Ruggiero, 211 Ariz. 262 (App. 2005) (denial of crime‑prevention instruction where record lacked evidence deadly force was immediately necessary)