State v. James, 231 Ariz. 490

James was convicted of “reasonable apprehension” aggravated assault and sentenced to life without release until 25 years; the jury found the aggravated assault not a dangerous offense under A.R.S. § 13-1204(A) but the record shows a deadly weapon was involved.
The indictment alleged James used a weapon to place the victim in reasonable apprehension of imminent physical injury; the trial instructions misstated the required mental state by allowing knowing or reckless “reasonable apprehension.”
Evidence included surveillance video, witnesses, and James’s police interview; a shopping cart theft led to a confrontation where James produced a knife and lunged toward an employee, though no injury occurred.
James testified the knife was displayed in panic and that he did not intend to cause fear or apprehension, and his defense contested the mental state.
The jury convicted on the theory of reasonable apprehension but instruction error allowed a non-existent liability theory and undermined the defense’s focus on intent; there was no objection to the instructions at trial.
This court reviews fundamental error under Henderson; the error is fundamental and prejudicial given the case facts and James’s defense and arguments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the jury instructions misstated the mens rea for the assault	James argues error went to core of case by misdefining intent	State concedes error in including knowingly/recklessly	Fundamental error; instructions were improper
Whether the error was prejudicial under Henderson	James asserts prejudice from incorrect instruction	Prejudice shown by defense focus on intent	Prejudice established; could have changed result
Whether invited error applies to the instruction	No invited error since no party proposed the instruction	State may have invited by adopting in another case	Invited error not shown; fundamental error review applies

State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561 (Ariz. 2005) (fundamental error review for trial-court errors in criminal cases)
State v. Bearup, 221 Ariz. 163 (Ariz. 2009) (prejudice analysis in fundamental error review)
State v. Ontiveros, 206 Ariz. 539 (Ariz. 2003) (rules for fundamental error and prejudice)
State v. Zinsmeyer, 222 Ariz. 612 (Ariz. 2009) (instruction on non-existent theory of liability as fundamental error)
State v. Rutledge, 197 Ariz. 389 (Ariz. 2000) (reversible error considerations in appellate review)
State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549 (Ariz. 1993) (case-specific fundamental error analysis)
State v. Williams, 154 Ariz. 366 (Ariz. 1987) (harm of incorrect instruction when it lessens burden of proof)
State v. Logan, 200 Ariz. 564 (Ariz. 2001) (invited error doctrine considerations)
Karr v. State, 221 Ariz. 319 (Ariz. 2008) (standard of review when sustaining conviction)