## Facts

- Johnny Frank Buggs fought with two women, Shirley Hall and Verna Brown, inside a pool hall; the fight moved into the parking lot.
- Buggs tripped over a curb, fell, and was kicked by three men with whom he had a prior incident.
- During the beating, Buggs was stabbed in the back by one of the women.
- A friend pulled Buggs away to the side of the building, handed him a pistol, and told him to protect himself.
- Buggs returned to the front of the pool hall where multiple people were gathered; two of the men who had assaulted him were present.
- Buggs believed the two men were gang members and assumed they had firearms; he also saw Brown holding a knife, but she did not threaten him with it at that moment.
- Buggs fired toward the two men, missed, and struck Brown in the leg.

## Issues

1. Whether an erroneous self-defense instruction that failed to place on the State the burden to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt required reversal.
2. Whether the instructional error was harmless because the evidence did not justify giving any self-defense instruction.

## Decision

- The court affirmed Buggs’s aggravated-assault conviction and 20-year sentence.
- The court held the self-defense instruction was erroneous because it did not tell the jury the State must disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The court held the error was harmless because the evidence did not support a self-defense instruction at all.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant is entitled to a self-defense instruction if there is the slightest evidence that a reasonable person would believe force is immediately necessary to protect against another’s use or attempted use of unlawful physical force. (A.R.S. § 13-404(A))
- Self-defense instructions must make clear that the State bears the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense; omitting that burden allocation is fundamental error.
- An erroneous self-defense instruction may be harmless where the defendant was not entitled to any self-defense instruction because the record lacks evidence of an imminent threat and immediate necessity at the moment force was used.
- Generalized fear of future retaliation, without evidence of an immediate unlawful attack or attempted attack, does not satisfy the “immediately necessary” requirement.

## Conclusion

Although the trial court misstated the State’s burden on self-defense, the conviction was affirmed because Buggs’s own account showed a preemptive use of force in response to anticipated retaliation rather than an immediate need to defend against an imminent attack.


State v. Buggs, 167 Ariz. 333, 806 P.2d 1381 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990)