Many people assume that if someone threatens them, they can defend themselves later on. Arizona law, however, draws a clear line. The right to use force only applies when the threat is immediate. A recent aggravated assault case from the Arizona Court of Appeals illustrates the importance of timing. Once a person leaves the scene and then comes back to confront the same individual, the law no longer treats that conduct as self-defense.
The case stemmed from an argument that began inside a bar in Mohave County. Tensions escalated, and after exchanging words with another patron, the accused left the scene. He returned minutes later and confronted the same individual in the parking lot. A fight broke out, and prosecutors later charged him with aggravated assault, pointing to the presence of a knife during the confrontation. At trial, he asserted that he acted in self-defense, arguing that prior threats from the other individual justified his response. The jury disagreed, and the conviction was affirmed on appeal. The court found that by leaving and later returning to the scene, the immediacy required for a justification defense no longer applied. Arizona courts tend to interpret use-of-force claims narrowly, focusing heavily on whether the response was immediate and necessary under the circumstances presented at trial.
Understanding Arizona’s Justification Statute
Under Arizona law a person may threaten or use physical force when they reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent another from committing certain crimes. These include aggravated assault, armed robbery, and murder. However, the statute consists of strict requirements. The threat must be immediate, and the response must be proportionate.
In this case, the confrontation inside the bar did not provide the accused with legal grounds to attack someone in the parking lot later. The court focused on timing. After leaving the scene, he had the chance to cool off or call for help. Instead, he chose to return and wait outside. That sequence of events undercut the argument that force was necessary to prevent a crime in that moment.
Missing Evidence and the Willits Instruction
The defense asked the court to give a Willits instruction, which tells the jury they can assume missing evidence would have helped the defense. This type of instruction applies when police fail to collect or preserve something that might have been important. In this case, the accused argued that an interior surveillance video from the bar would have shown the other person behaving aggressively, backing up his claim of self-defense.
The trial judge denied the request, and the court of appeals agreed. Arizona sets a high bar for Willits instructions. To qualify, the missing evidence must be important, and its absence must have harmed the defense in a meaningful way. Here, the court found that neither standard was met. Police didn’t know at the time that the accused planned to raise a justification defense, so they weren’t obligated to retrieve every possible video from inside the bar.
Timing Is Everything in a Use-of-Force Defense
When you claim you acted to prevent a violent crime, courts will look closely at the timeline. Here, the accused waited outside for only a minute before driving off, then returned ten minutes later and parked nearby. He reappeared as soon as his target exited the bar and confronted him with a knife.
Even if the other person had made threats earlier, the accused had left the scene and returned later to escalate the conflict. Courts see that choice as a deliberate act, not a defensive one. When force is used after a gap in time or after someone reenters a situation they had already left, Arizona law generally does not view it as justified.
Repetitive Offender Sentencing in Arizona
The man in this case had prior felony convictions, which led to a sentencing enhancement as a category three repetitive offender. That classification carries serious consequences, including a presumptive prison term of more than 11 years. Arizona courts apply these sentencing enhancements strictly, particularly when the offense involves a weapon or a credible threat of violence.
The defense also disputed how the court handled aggravating and mitigating factors at sentencing. The appellate court rejected those claims, noting that trial judges have broad authority in weighing those issues. In this case, the record supported the court’s decisions.
Call a Defense Attorney Who Understands How to Challenge a Felony Assault Case
If you are facing aggravated assault charges in Arizona, you need a defense plan grounded in the facts and the law. Do not assume that a self-defense claim will hold up in court without strong supporting evidence. Contact The Law Office of James E. Novak to discuss your case today. Our firm is committed to protecting your rights and helping you understand your legal options from day one. Call (480) 413-1499 now for a free consultation.