State v. Miller, 226 Ariz. 190

Oliveri and Nelson were charged with aggravated DUI, some counts requiring impairment to the slightest degree under § 28-1381(A)(1).
The respondent judge intended to instruct with RAJI 28.1383(A)(1)-1, which states impairment of ability to drive as an element.
The State objected and sought a special action to challenge the RAJI instruction before trial.
The court granted stays of trials pending the special actions, which were consolidated and reviewed here.
The Arizona Court of Appeals grants relief, holding the RAJI language adding ‘ability to drive’ impairment is improper and could mislead juries.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether RAJI 28.1383(A)(1)-1 correctly states the law	State argues it adds an element not in § 28-1381(A)(1).	Oliveri/Nelson argue the language is permissible and not a new element.	RAJI language improperly adds an element and could mislead.
Whether the court should grant relief via a pre-trial special action	Discretionary jurisdiction is appropriate; no adequate post-judgment remedy.	Not explicitly stated; focus is on legality of instruction.	Special action jurisdiction granted; relief issued directing not to give the RAJI instruction as written.

State v. Morales, 198 Ariz. 372, 10 P.3d 630 (App. 2000) (impairment to slightest degree in DUI statute understood)
State ex rel. Romley v. Martin, 203 Ariz. 46, 49 P.3d 1142 (App. 2002) (special action review of jury instructions)
State v. Dawley, 201 Ariz. 285, 34 P.3d 394 (App. 2001) (special action jurisdiction for jury instruction challenge)
State v. Zaragoza, 221 Ariz. 49, 209 P.3d 629 (App. 2009) (context on reviewing jury instructions)
State v. Hinden, 224 Ariz. 508, 233 P.3d 621 (App. 2010) (statutory interpretation standard when language is plain)
Clayton v. State, 38 Ariz. 135, 297 P.1037 (1931) (driving not against inebriety; focus on driving while impaired)