Table of ContentsPageImportant Notice

Arizona Criminal Jury Instructions

Notice: The following jury instructions are not warranted to be accurate or otherwise up to date. These instructions were obtained from cases filed in the courts of Arizona, and thus, are public record. USE THEM AT YOUR OWN RISK! More up to date instructions may exist. If you have any specialized instructions, please send them to us for publication here.

General Criminal Jury Instructions

Standard Criminal 1 Duty of Jury
Standard Criminal 2 Lawyers' Comments Are Not Evidence
Standard Criminal 3 Stipulations
Standard Criminal 4 Evidence To Be Considered
Standard Criminal 5 Presumption of Innocence - Reasonable Doubt
Standard Criminal 6 Voluntariness of Defendant's Statements
Standard Criminal 7 Jury Not To Consider Penalty
Standard Criminal 8 Character and Reputation of the Defendant
Standard Criminal 9 Flight or Concealment
Standard Criminal 10 Lost, Destroyed, or Unpreserved Evidence
Standard Criminal 11 Evidence of Defendant's Non-Presence
Standard Criminal 12 Absence of Other Participant
Standard Criminal 13 Entrapment
Standard Criminal 14 Threats by Defendant
Standard Criminal 15 Defendant Need Not Testify
Standard Criminal 16 Evidence of Any Kind
Standard Criminal 17 Voluntary Act
Standard Criminal 18 Credibility of Witnesses
Standard Criminal 19 Credibility of Felon As Defendant Witness
Standard Criminal 20 Credibility of Felon Witness
Standard Criminal 21 Indictment/Information Is Not Evidence
Standard Criminal 22 Lesser-Included Offense
Standard Criminal 23 Proof of Prior Conviction
Standard Criminal 24 Direct and Circumstantial Evidence
Standard Criminal 25 Expert Testimony
Standard Criminal 26 Other Acts
Standard Criminal 27 "Intentionally" or "With Intent To" Defined
Standard Criminal 28 "Knowingly" Defined
Standard Criminal 29 "Recklessly" or "Reckless Disregard" Defined
Standard Criminal 30 Accomplice
Standard Criminal 31 Mere Presence
Standard Criminal 32 Consider Evidence Separately
Standard Criminal 33 Defendant Absent at Trial
Standard Criminal 34 Testimony of Law Enforcement Officers
Standard Criminal 35 Separate Counts
Standard Criminal 36 Defendant's Testimony

STANDARD CRIMINAL 1

Duty of Jury

It is your duty as a juror to decide this case by applying these jury instructions to the facts as you determine them. You
must follow these jury instructions. They are the rules you should use to decide this case.

It is your duty to determine what the facts are in the case by determining what actually happened. Determine the facts only
from the evidence produced in court. When I say "evidence," I mean the testimony of witnesses and the exhibits introduced in court.

You should not guess about any fact. You must not be influenced by sympathy or prejudice. You must not be concerned with any opinion that you feel I have about the facts. You, as jurors, are the sole judges of what happened.

You must consider all these instructions. Do not pick out one instruction, or part of one, and ignore the others. As you
determine the facts, however, you may find that some instructions no longer apply. You must then consider the instructions that do apply, together with the facts as you have determined them.

STANDARD CRIMINAL 2

Lawyers' Comments Are Not Evidence

In their opening statements and closing arguments, the lawyers have talked to you about the law and the evidence. What
the lawyers said is not evidence, but it may help you to understand the law and the evidence.

STANDARD CRIMINAL 3

Stipulations

The lawyers are permitted to stipulate that certain facts exist. This means that both sides agree those facts do exist and
are part of the evidence.

STANDARD CRIMINAL 4

Evidence To Be Considered

You are to determine what the facts in the case are from the evidence produced in court. If the court sustained an objection to
a lawyer's question, you must disregard it and any answer given.

Any testimony stricken from the court record must not be considered.

STANDARD CRIMINAL 5

Presumption of Innocence - Reasonable Doubt

The State has the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil cases, it is only necessary to
prove that a fact is more likely true than not true, or that its truth is highly probable. In criminal cases such as this, the
State's proof must be more powerful than that. It must be beyond a reasonable doubt.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you firmly convinced of the defendant's guilt. There are very few
things in this world that we know with absolute certainty, and in criminal cases the law does not require proof that overcomes every doubt. If, based on your consideration of the evidence, you are firmly convinced that the defendant is guilty of the crime
charged, you must find the defendant guilty. If, on the other hand, you think there is a real possibility that the defendant is
not guilty, you must give [him] [her] the benefit of the doubt and find the defendant not guilty.

You must decide whether or not the State has proven the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You must start with
the presumption that the defendant is innocent. The State must then prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This
means that the State must prove each element of the charge(s) beyond a reasonable doubt. If you conclude that the State has not met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant not guilty of [that] [those] charge(s).

STANDARD CRIMINAL 6

Voluntariness of Defendant's Statements

You must not consider any statements made by the defendant to a law enforcement officer unless you determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant made the statements voluntarily.

A defendant's statement was not voluntary if it resulted from the defendant's will being overcome by a law enforcement officer's
use of any sort of violence, coercion, or threats, or by any direct or implied promise, however slight.

You must give such weight to the defendant's statement as you feel it deserves under all the circumstances.

SOURCE: Marji (Criminal) No. 205; and A.R.S. з 13-3988. State v. Williams, 136 Ariz. 52, 56, 664 P.2d 202 (1983). State v. McVay, 127 Ariz. 18, 20, 617 P.2d 1134 (1980). State v. Brooks, 127 Ariz. 130, 618 P.2d 624 (App. 1980).

STANDARD CRIMINAL 7

Jury Not To Consider Penalty

You must decide whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty by determining what the facts in the case are and applying these
jury instructions. You must not consider the possible punishment when deciding on guilt; punishment is left to the judge.

STANDARD CRIMINAL 8

Character and Reputation of the Defendant

You have heard evidence of the defendant's character for [truthfulness,] [peacefulness,] [honesty,] [etc.]. In deciding
this case, you should consider that evidence together with, and in the same manner as, all the other evidence in the case.

SOURCE: Ninth Circuit Model Instruction 4.06 (modified); State v. Childs, 113 Ariz. 318, 553 P.2d 1192 (1976).

STANDARD CRIMINAL 9

Flight or Concealment

In determining whether the State has proved the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, you may consider any evidence of the defendant's running away, hiding, or concealing evidence, together with all the other evidence in the case. [You may also
consider the defendant's reasons for running away, hiding, or concealing evidence.] Running away, hiding, or concealing evidence after a crime has been committed does not by itself prove guilt.

SOURCE: State v. Hatton, 116 Ariz. 142, 568 P.2d 1040 (1977); State v. Owen,, 94 Ariz. 404, 385 P.2d 700 (1963), vacated on other grounds, 378 U.S. 574 (1964).

STANDARD CRIMINAL 10

If you determine that the State has lost, destroyed, or failed to preserve evidence whose contents or quality are
important to the issues in this case, and that the explanation for the loss, destruction, or failure to preserve is inadequate, then
you should assume that the evidence was unfavorable to the State. This fact alone may create a reasonable doubt about the
defendant's guilt.

SOURCE: State v. Mitchell, 140 Ariz. 551, 683 P.2d 750 (App. 1984); State v. Willits, 96 Ariz. 184, 393 P.2d 274 (1964); and State v. Tucker, 157 Ariz. 433, 759 P.2d 579 (1988).

STANDARD CRIMINAL 11

Evidence of Defendant's Non-Presence

The State has the burden of proving that the defendant was present at the time and place the alleged crime was committed. If
you have a reasonable doubt whether the defendant was present at the time and place the alleged crime was committed, you must find the defendant not guilty.

[The defendant has produced evidence of being absent at the time and place the alleged crime was committed. If you have a
reasonable doubt whether the defendant was present at the time and place the alleged crime was committed, then you must find the defendant not guilty.]

SOURCE: Manual on Jury Instruction, 33 F.R.D. 556, Modified; Marji (Criminal) No. 221.

STANDARD CRIMINAL 12

Absence of Other Participant

The only matter for you to determine is whether the State has proved [defendant's name] guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant's guilt or innocence is not affected by the fact that another person or persons might have participated or cooperated in the crime and is not on trial now. You should not guess about the reason any other person is absent from the courtroom.

STANDARD CRIMINAL 13

Entrapment

The State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped. The defendant has introduced the
defense of entrapment. The defendant is not guilty if [he] [she] was entrapped by law enforcement officers. The defendant was
entrapped if all of the following three things occurred:

1. The idea of committing the crime started with law enforcement officers or their agents rather than with the defendant; and

2. The law enforcement officers or their agents urged the defendant to commit the crime; and

3. The defendant was not predisposed to commit the type of crime charged before the officers or their agents urged the defendant to commit it.

SOURCE: Manual on Jury Instructions, 33 F.R.D. 557, Marji (Criminal) No. 222.

STANDARD CRIMINAL 14

Threats by Defendant

In determining whether the State has proved the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, you may consider, along with all
the other evidence in the case, evidence that the defendant sought to influence testimony by threatening a witness to the alleged
offense. Such threats do not by themselves prove guilt.

SOURCE: State v. Settle, 111 Ariz. 394, 531 P.2d 151 (1975); and State v. Contreras, 122 Ariz. 478, 595 P.2d 1023 (App. 1979).

STANDARD CRIMINAL 15

Defendant Need Not Testify

The State must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with its own evidence. You must not conclude that the defendant is likely to be guilty because the defendant did not testify. The defendant is not required to testify. The decision on whether or not to testify is left to the defendant acting with the advice of an attorney. You must not let this choice affect your deliberations
in any way.

SOURCE: A.R.S. з 13-163(B) (1956); Griffin v. State,
380 U.S. 609 (1965); Marji (Criminal) No. 205.

STANDARD CRIMINAL 16

Evidence of Any Kind

The State must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with its own evidence. The defendant is not required to produce evidence of any kind. The decision on whether to produce any evidence is left to the defendant acting with the advice of an attorney. The defendant's failure to produce any evidence is not evidence of guilt.

STANDARD CRIMINAL 17

Voluntary Act

Before you may convict the defendant of the charged crime(s), you must find that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant [committed a voluntary act] [or] [omitted to perform a duty imposed upon the defendant by law that the defendant was capable of performing.] A voluntary act means a bodily movement performed consciously and as a result of effort and determination. You must consider all the evidence in deciding whether the defendant [committed the act voluntarily] [or] [failed to perform the duty imposed on the defendant.]

SOURCE: A.R.S. зз 13-105(35), 13-201. State v. Lara, 183 Ariz. 233, 902 P.2d 1337 (1995).

STANDARD CRIMINAL 18

Credibility of Witnesses

In determining the evidence, you must decide whether to believe the witnesses and their testimony. As you do this, you
should consider the testimony in light of all the other evidence in the case. This means you may consider such things as the
witnesses' ability and opportunity to observe, their manner and memory while testifying, any motive or prejudice they might have, and any inconsistent statements they may have made.

STANDARD CRIMINAL 19

Credibility of Felon as Defendant Witness

You have heard evidence that defendant has previously been convicted of a criminal offense. You may consider that evidence
only as it may affect defendant's believability as a witness. You must not consider a prior conviction as evidence of guilt of the
crime for which the defendant is now on trial.

STANDARD CRIMINAL 20

Credibility of Witness

You have heard evidence that a witness has been convicted of a criminal offense. You may consider this evidence only as it may affect the witness' believability.

SOURCE: Ninth Circuit Model Jury Instruction, з 4.08.

STANDARD CRIMINAL 21

Indictment/Information Is Not Evidence

The State has charged the defendant with [a crime] [certain crimes]. A charge is not evidence against the defendant. You must
not think that the defendant is guilty just because of a charge. The defendant has pled "not guilty." This plea of "not guilty"
means that the State must prove each element of the charge[s] beyond a reasonable doubt.

SOURCE: Marji (Criminal) No. 201.

STANDARD CRIMINAL 22

Lesser-Included Offense

The crime of ___________________________ includes the less serious crime[s] of_____________________ _______________________________. You may consider a less serious crime only if you unanimously find the
defendant not guilty of the greater crime.

STANDARD CRIMINAL 23

Proof of Prior Conviction

The law requires that a separate trial and jury deliberation occur after the conviction of the defendant for the current
charges to determine whether the defendant has previously been convicted of a felony. The State must prove that the defendant was in fact previously convicted; however, the State need not re-prove the conviction by offering all the evidence again. The State instead must offer evidence that a conviction was the final result.

The general instructions given to you on the current charges apply to this proceeding. The State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that on the ___ day of _______________, 19 __, and in ____________________________________________, Case No. ___________, the defendant was convicted of the crime of ________________, which was committed on _______________________.

SOURCE: Arizona Criminal Rules of Procedure, Rule 19.1(b).

STANDARD CRIMINAL 24

Direct and Circumstantial Evidence

Evidence may be direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence is the testimony of a witness who saw, heard, or otherwise observed
an event. Circumstantial evidence is the proof of a fact or facts from which you may find another fact. The law makes no distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence. It is for you to determine the importance to be given to the evidence, regardless of whether it is direct or circumstantial.

STANDARD CRIMINAL 25

Expert Testimony

A witness may give an opinion on a subject upon which the witness has become an expert because of education, study, or
experience. You should consider the opinion of an expert and the reasons, if any, given for it. However, you are not bound by any expert opinion. Give the expert opinion the importance that you believe it deserves.

SOURCE: Rule 702, Ariz. R. Evid., and State v. Roberts, 139 Ariz. 117, 677 P.2d 280 (App. 1983).

STANDARD CRIMINAL 26

Other Acts

Evidence of other acts of the defendant has been admitted in this case. You must not consider this evidence to prove the
defendant's character or that the defendant acted in conformity with that character. You may, however, consider that evidence only as it relates to the defendant's [motive,] [opportunity,] [intent,] [preparation,] [plan,] [knowledge,] [identity,] or
[absence of mistake or accident].

See Rule of Evidence 404(b).

STANDARD CRIMINAL 27

"Intentionally" or "With Intent To" Defined

"Intentionally" [or "with intent to"] means that a defendant's objective is to cause that result or to engage in that conduct.

SOURCE: A.R.S. з 13-105 (6) (a).

STANDARD CRIMINAL 28

"Knowingly" Defined

"Knowingly" means that a defendant acted with awareness of [or belief in] the existence of conduct or circumstances
constituting an offense. It does not mean that a defendant must have known that the conduct is forbidden by law.

[It is no defense that the defendant was not aware of [or could not believe in] the existence of conduct or circumstances
solely because of voluntary intoxication.]

SOURCE: A.R.S. з 13-105 (6) (b).

STANDARD CRIMINAL 29

"Recklessly" or "Reckless Disregard" Defined

"Recklessly [reckless disregard]" means that a defendant is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and
unjustifiable risk that the result will occur [or that the circumstance exists]. The risk must be such that disregarding it
is a gross deviation from what a reasonable person would do in the situation.

[It is no defense that a person who created such a risk was unaware of it solely because of voluntary intoxication.]

SOURCE: A.R.S. з 13-105 (6) (c).

STANDARD CRIMINAL 30

Accomplice

A person is criminally accountable for the conduct of another if the person is an accomplice of such other person in the
commission of the offense.

An accomplice is a person who, with intent to promote or facilitate the commission of an offense, aids, counsels, agrees to
aid, or attempts to aid another person in planning or committing the offense.

STANDARD CRIMINAL 31

Mere Presence

The mere presence of a defendant at the scene of a crime, together with knowledge a crime is being committed, is
insufficient to establish guilt.

STANDARD CRIMINAL 32

Consider Evidence Separately

There are _______ defendants. You must consider the evidence in the case as a whole. However, you must consider the charge[s] against each defendant separately.

Each defendant is entitled to have [his] [her] guilt or innocence as to each of the crimes charged determined from [his]
[her] own conduct and from the evidence which applies to [him] [her], as if [he] [she] were being tried alone.

SOURCE: State v. Running Eagle, 176 Ariz. 59, 68 (1993).

STANDARD CRIMINAL 33

Defendant Absent at Trial

You are not to consider or speculate about the defendant's absence from the courtroom. It is not evidence, and you must not
consider it in deciding if the State has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

STANDARD CRIMINAL 34

Testimony of Law Enforcement Officers

The testimony of a law enforcement officer is not entitled to any greater or lesser importance or believability merely because
of the fact that the witness is a law enforcement officer. You are to consider the testimony of a police officer just as you would
the testimony of any other witness.

STANDARD CRIMINAL 35

Separate Counts

Each count charges a separate and distinct offense. You must decide each count separately on the evidence with the law
applicable to it, uninfluenced by your decision on any other count. You may find that the State has proved beyond a reasonable
doubt, all, some, or none of the charged offenses. Your finding for each count must be stated in a separate verdict.

STANDARD CRIMINAL 36

Defendant's Testimony

You must evaluate the defendant's testimony the same as any witness' testimony.