State of Arizona, Appellee v. Emmet Darnell Wall, Appellant

Summary

The court held that asserting an all-or-nothing defense does not automatically forfeit a defendant's right to a lesser-included offense instruction. Because the record supported a rational finding that Wall intended to aid only a theft by ruse and did not establish the force or threat required for robbery, the trial court was required to instruct on attempted theft. The court reversed Wall's conviction, vacated the intermediate appellate decision, and remanded for a new trial.