Legal Opinion

State v. King

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided July 7, 2010No. CR-09-0333-PRPublishedCited by 39 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

BERCH, Chief Justice.

¶ 1 The parties have asked us to decide whether a defendant in a criminal case must have acted solely from a reasonable belief that he faced immediate physical danger to qualify for a self-defense jury instruction. We hold that the governing statute does not impose such a requirement. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. (A.R.S.) § 13-404 (2010).

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶ 2 Adam Scott King claims that a homeless person threw a full two-liter bottle of water at him, hitting him in the head. In response, King struck the victim several times and kicked him in the side. The…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & YoungArizona Supreme Court · 1996
  2. State v. LandriganArizona Supreme Court · 1993
  3. State v. DumaineArizona Supreme Court · 1989
  4. State v. GomezArizona Supreme Court · 2006
  5. State v. NoriegaArizona Supreme Court · 1984

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by39 opinions

  1. State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles HolleArizona Supreme Court · 2016
  2. State v. DelahantyArizona Supreme Court · 2011
  3. State of Arizona v. Andy Daniel AlmeidaCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2015
  4. State of Arizona v. Nelson E. NottinghamCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2012
  5. State v. BowsherArizona Supreme Court · 2010

34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API