State v. Solis, 236 Ariz. 285

Defendant Alberto M. Solis was arrested for armed robbery, taken to a hospital after medical issues, and later attempted to flee the hospital wearing only a gown and socks.
Officer Hastings chased and cornered Solis; a struggle ensued and Solis struck the officer in the neck and face; Solis was charged with aggravated assault on an officer and resisting arrest.
At trial the State requested and the court gave a jury instruction on flight over Solis’s objection; Solis argued flight was irrelevant to the charged offenses.
The jury convicted Solis of both counts; he admitted six prior felonies and was sentenced with enhanced terms; Solis appealed the flight instruction and sought correction of the sentencing minute entry.
The State conceded the flight instruction should not have been given; the court nonetheless reviewed harmlessness and determined the instruction was harmless given surveillance video, witness testimony, and counsel arguments.
The court modified the sentencing minute entry to reflect Solis was sentenced as a category three repetitive offender, consistent with the court’s oral pronouncement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether flight instruction was supported by evidence	State previously argued instruction appropriate (but later conceded error)	Solis: flight evidence irrelevant to charged crimes and unsupported	Instruction was improper but harmless error; convictions affirmed
Standard for reviewing erroneous jury instructions	N/A	N/A	Court applies harmless-error review when defendant objects (per Valverde)
Whether error requires reversal per Smith principle	State: error harmless despite Smith language	Solis: Smith suggests unnecessary instruction is prejudicial error requiring reversal	Court declines automatic prejudice rule in Smith; applies Valverde harmless-error framework and affirms
Whether minute entry should reflect category three repetitive offender	State and Solis request correction to conform to oral pronouncement	N/A	Court corrects minute entry to designate offenses repetitive and defendant category three

State v. Smith, 113 Ariz. 298 (establishes two-part test for when flight instruction is warranted)
State v. Valverde, 220 Ariz. 582 (addresses standards for reviewing erroneous jury instructions and harmless-error analysis)
State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549 (discusses flight instruction requirement and harmless-error principles)
State v. Ring, 204 Ariz. 534 (explains trial errors are assessed quantitatively among other evidence)
State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561 (framework distinguishing structural, harmless, and fundamental error)