The Crime Prevention Justification in Arizona
The jury instructions that are given at a defendant’s criminal trial can make a big difference to the outcome of the case. In State v. Almeida, the appellate court considered the trial court’s failure to give a jury instruction about A.R.S. § 13-411, the “crime prevention justification.” Among other things, A.R.S. § 13-411 allows someone to threaten deadly physical force against another if he believes that this force is necessary to prevent any of the crimes listed. Aggravated assault is one of the crimes against which a defendant may be justified in using force or deadly force. Other crimes to which this defense may apply include kidnapping, sexual assault, armed robbery, and arson of an occupied structure,
State v. Almeida arose when the defendant was driving a car carrying his four-year-old son and fiancée. The victim was driving by himself. The defendant made a turn that cut off the victim, who hit the brakes. According to the testimony of the defendant’s fiancée, the victim responded by honking and tailgating them. She also said that the victim waved a gun. In the moment, she told the defendant about the victim’s gun.
When the cars pulled up to a stoplight, the defendant got out and stood next to the car with his own gun. The light changed to green, and the defendant got in his car and kept driving. Instead of letting it go, the victim gave chase, running two red lights.
more
The victim called 911, and the dispatcher told him to stop chasing, but the victim continued for a while. The dispatcher then sent a police officer to meet the victim in a nearby shopping center. The victim went to the wrong place in the center but eventually met up with the officer. The officer searched the victim’s car and didn’t find a weapon. The victim claimed he never had one.
The defendant was arrested and put on trial. The trial court gave instructions on self-defense, defense of others, and defensive display of firearms. The trial court refused to give the defendant’s requested instruction on A.R.S. § 13-411, the crime prevention justification, on the grounds that there was no evidence to support it. The defendant was convicted and sentenced.
On appeal, the defendant argued that the judge should have given the jury instruction he requested on A.R.S. § 13-411.The state argued that the meat of the instruction was already covered by other instructions, so it didn’t matter that the trial court denied the request.
The instruction requested would have told the jury that his threat of deadly physical force was justified if he reasonably believed it was necessary to to stop an imminent aggravated assault. More importantly, the instruction also would have told the jury that a defendant is presumed to have acted reasonably if he is acting to stop what he reasonably thinks is imminent aggravated assault (or one of the other listed crimes).
The appellate court explained that a defendant is entitled to a jury instruction as long as it was on a theory supported by some small amount of proof. The court found that looking at the evidence that supported the defendant’s version of events, a rational jury could decide the victim acted as an aggressor. In this case, the defendant might reasonably have believed he needed to display the gun, while he was in the “zone of danger” in order to stop an aggravated assault.
The appellate court further explained that it didn’t matter if a jury might not find the defendant’s evidence believable. When deciding whether to give a jury instruction requested by the defendant, the trial court must look at evidence in the light that supports the defendant.
The appellate court also explained that the state was wrong that the requested crime prevention instruction was substantively covered by the self-defense and defense of third-person instructions. The crime prevention justification lets a jury know that a defendant is presumed to be acting reasonably in acting to stop an imminent aggravated assault. The state has the burden of proving the lack of justification. If the state fails to prove the defendant was unreasonable, the defendant must be acquitted. In this case, if the crime prevention instruction was given, it would have let the jury know about the presumption in favor of the defendant.
The appellate court reversed the conviction and sentence. Because of the presumption that the defendant acted reasonably and the burden on the state to prove otherwise, the crime prevention justification is an important one for defendants. However, a petition for review was filed to the Arizona Supreme Court, so this issue may still be in flux.
If you are charged with aggravated assault, the penalties are severe. It is important to retain an experienced criminal defense attorney who understands the nuances of all possible defenses. James Novak provides a free consultation for active criminal charges and serves Phoenix, Mesa, Tempe, Chandler, Gilbert, and Scottsdale, Arizona. Call today for a confidential and free consultation at (480) 413-1499.
Additional Resources A.R.S. § 13-411 (Crime Prevention justification)
A.R.S § 13-1204 (Aggravated assault)
A.R.S. § 13-404 (Self defense justification)
Requirements and Exceptions to Lawful Search Warrants in Arizona Other Articles of Interest Violations of “Search and Seizure” Laws: How they Impact Prosecution, July 23, 2013
U.S. Supreme Court Rules No Warrant Needed To Collect DNA If Arrested, June 9, 2013
Yes, You Have Constitutional Rights At An Arizona Checkpoint, July 5, 2014
